The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the profession of an advocate should not be treated as a commercial activity and, therefore, should not be subject to commercial electricity rates. Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Anish Kumar Gupta emphasized that advocates, being officers of the court, are prohibited from engaging in business or commercial endeavors.
The court pointed out that the Bar Council of India's regulations prohibit advocates from advertising their services and that they have distinct responsibilities towards the court, clients, colleagues, and opponents. These factors clearly differentiate the legal profession from commercial trade, leading the court to conclude that it cannot be classified as a commercial activity.
The judgment stated, "The advocate's profession cannot be categorized for charging under LMV-2 (commercial category), which is meant for commercial activities. Lawyers' activities are not considered commercial establishments, as established by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Lawyers' chambers/offices shall be charged under LMV-1 Domestic category, as lawyers neither conduct trade nor engage in commercial activities."
The case arose from a plea by a Tehsil Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh challenging the application of commercial electricity rates to lawyers' chambers. The association argued that legal practice serves society by contributing to the administration of justice and should not be treated as a commercial activity.
The petitioners referred to circulars issued by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC), placing the judiciary under the LMV-1 category, applicable to residential electricity users. They also highlighted that the Noida District Bar Association's chambers were charged under the same category.
However, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation contended that lawyers' activities fell under the "non-domestic purposes" category in the rate schedule for the fiscal year 2022-23, warranting LMV-2 category rates.
The Court noted that the rate schedule for that fiscal year did not specifically mention advocates' activities under any category. It further observed that LMV-2 rates applied to non-domestic purposes such as shops, hotels, restaurants, guest houses, and private institutions, emphasizing the need for activities to resemble those listed under LMV-2 for lawyers' offices to be classified similarly.
Reiterating a decision from the apex court in M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. v. Shiv Narayan Chopra, the Court upheld the non-commercial nature of the legal profession and ruled that lawyers should not be charged commercial tariff rates.
Consequently, the Court granted the petition and directed the application of earlier circulars that imposed LMV-1 rates for electricity consumption in lawyers' chambers within court premises.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Allahabad High Court advocate profession commercial activity electricity tariff rates non-commercial officers of the court Bar Council of India legal duties trade business LMV-1 Domestic category LMV-2 commercial category Tehsil Bar Association Uttar Pradesh UPERC circulars Noida District Bar Association Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation rate schedule non-domestic purposes apex court decision M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan Chopra administration of justice petition judgment differentiation Supreme Court High Courts court premises.
