2011 (8) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Use of electricity - use of residential premises by an advocate for commercial use - rate of electricity - Held that - the premises were used exclusively for the purpose of office not only by him but were shared with another advocate principally practicing in Mumbai. In view of the fact that the suit premises are exclusively used for the purpose of office, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be charged for electricity consumed at the rate meant for domestic use - The user of the suit is clearly a non-domestic and non-residential. - Professionals are liable to pay electricity charges at commercial rates.

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the appropriate tariff for electricity usage by professionals like advocates.
2. Validity and enforceability of the decree passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 post-enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Classification of electricity usage as domestic or non-domestic for tariff purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Appropriate Tariff for Electricity Usage by Professionals:
The petitioner, an advocate, was initially charged a residential rate for electricity. In 2000, the MSEB sought to charge a commercial rate, leading to a suit (RCS No. 194 of 2000) where the petitioner obtained a decree declaring him a domestic user. Post-2003, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (respondent) began charging a non-domestic rate based on MERC orders. The court examined various MERC orders and judicial precedents to determine if professional activities like those of advocates, doctors, etc., should be classified as domestic or non-domestic. It concluded that such professional activities, when conducted exclusively in premises, are non-domestic uses and should be charged accordingly.

2. Validity and Enforceability of the Decree Passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 Post-Enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003:
The court considered whether the decree from RCS No. 194 of 2000 remained enforceable after the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was noted that the new Act empowered MERC to determine tariffs, which superseded previous tariffs set by MSEB. The court cited Supreme Court rulings, stating that while legislatures cannot overrule court decisions directly, they can amend the underlying legal provisions. The Electricity Act, 2003, and subsequent MERC tariffs altered the basis of the original decree, rendering it inapplicable and unenforceable.

3. Classification of Electricity Usage as Domestic or Non-Domestic for Tariff Purposes:
The court analyzed the classification of electricity usage under MERC tariffs. It referred to various judicial decisions, including New Delhi Municipal Council v. Sohanlal Sachdev and M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan, to understand the distinction between domestic and non-domestic usage. The court emphasized that the MERC classification of "domestic" vs. "non-domestic" usage is crucial. Professional activities conducted exclusively in premises do not qualify as domestic use. The court noted that the MERC tariffs for 2008-2009 categorized users into nine categories, with professional activities like those of lawyers and doctors falling under non-domestic use.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner, using the premises exclusively for professional purposes, should be charged at the non-domestic rate as per the MERC tariffs. The decree from RCS No. 194 of 2000 was deemed non-executable due to the revised tariffs under the Electricity Act, 2003. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →