THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.26056 OF 2007 Dated 28th June, 2010 Between: C.R.Sridharan …Petitioner And The Chief Manager (Commercial) and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Narender Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER:
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is filed by a practising Advocate questioning conversion of his service connection from LT Category-I to LT Category-II (commercial/non-domestic) as illegal. The petitioner sought for a further declaration that the service connection of the Office run by him cannot be treated as LT Category-II and that the same shall be treated as LT Category-I. The petitioner sought for a further prayer for refund of the consumption charges paid by him under LT Category- II.
At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents placed before the Court judgment dated 27.10.2005, in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and others vs. Shiv Narayan and another[1], of the Supreme Court in support of his submission that the issue raised in this writ petition has been decided by a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the above said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court held thus:
“We have heard Mr M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. We have perused the Circulars and seen the tariff entries under which the levy has been made. We find that the tariff entry classificates into two categories viz (a) “domestic purposes” and (b) “commercial and non-domestic purposes”. This classification has been done statutorily in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
The classification clubs “commercial and non- domestic purposes” into one category.
Thus the question whether an Advocate can be said to be carrying on a commercial activity does not arise for consideration. As the user is admittedly not “domestic” it would fall in the category of “commercial and non-domestic”. In such cases even for “non- domestic” use the commercial rates are to be charged. Exclusively running an office is clearly a “non-domestic” use.”
The learned counsel, while admitting that since non-domestic and commercial categories are clubbed under one category, the Supreme Court has held that an Advocate is liable to pay tariff at non- domestic rate as per the said classification, however, submitted that the petitioner may be left free to question the very classification itself by which the non-domestic category is clubbed with commercial. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised the said issue in this writ petition. Therefore, the further question as to whether the classification was proper or not cannot be decided in this writ petition. Following the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail a separate remedy to challenge the classification itself at his option.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 06.12.2007 is vacated. WPMP No.33974 of 2007 and WVMP No.
542 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th June, 2010 vrn
[1] Civil Appeal No.1065 of 2000