Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Advocates Assosciation Of Bombay High ... on 17 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:1257-DB
(1) 906 ca 794.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 794 OF 2024
IN WP/15666/2023
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,
THR THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D. AND ANR
VERSUS
ADVOCATES ASSOSCIATION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT AURANGABAD
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gaikwad Anil M.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni
GP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.B. Girase
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 17th January, 2024
P.C. :-
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides.
2. We are informed by the Electricity Company that there are three
categories which decide the tariff of electricity per unit. The highest charged
tariff is for commercial / non-residential category establishments. Medium
charges are for residence and the lowest is the public utility establishments. It
is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the Company that the
judgments relied upon by this Court in paragraph 3 of its order dated
20.12.2023, more specifically the Chairman M.P. Electricity Board and Others
(2) 906 ca 794.24
vs. Shiv Narayan and Anr.;(2005) 7 SCC 283, was a subject matter of reference
to a Larger Bench. By judgment dated 27.10.2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(3 Judges) delivered a judgment concluding that if a lawyer is operating his
office from residential premises, the tariff would be at par with which is
charged for consumption of electricity in a residence. If the same lawyer takes
a premises or a room on rent situated in a commercial / non-residential
category establishment, automatically his office would be termed as a
commercial / non-residential category establishment only because he is
conducting his profession in a room which is located in a commercial / non-
residential category establishment.
3. The learned advocate for the Company points out that the MERC is
the authority which decides the tariff. MERC has already decided to include
the Hospitals, Clinics, Dispensaries, Educational Institutions etc. in the public
utility category i.e. in the low tension category which comprises of 11
categories and the Doctors and Hospitals are listed in LT7A. However, lawyers
are not enlisted in any of these categories.
4. The learned advocate Shri Kulkarni representing the Petitioner -
Advocate's Association of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad
submits that this issue needs to be dealt with since the peculiar facts of this
case are that the Lawyer Chambers have been constructed within the premises
(3) 906 ca 794.24
of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court with the involvement and
contribution of Government of Maharashtra. The premises belong to the
Government of Maharashtra. The chambers do not constitute a commercial
activity and there is no ownership of lawyers over the chambers which have
been leased out.
5. In view of the above, this Civil Application is disposed off with a
clarification that, for the present, the case of the Petitioner-Members shall be
treated as being liable to be charged with the tariff applicable to the residence
category without creating any equities in favour of the Petitioner-Members. If
this Court eventually concludes that the Petitioners do not fall in the residence
category and if the MERC does not place them in any specific category, this
interim order would not create any rights in their favour.
6. List the Writ Petition as per the scheduled date.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
mub
