The profession of an advocate doesn’t constitute a marketable exertion and, thus, shouldn’t be subordinated to marketable rates for electricity consumption, the Allahabad High Court recently held. (Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. UPERC). A bench of judges Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Anish Kumar Gupta observed that an advocate who’s designated as an officer of the court is interdicted from engaging in business or marketable conditioning. The Bar Council of India has rules against flashing their services, the Court further noted. The court observed that lawyers also have defined duties towards the court, guests, associates, and opponents. The Court explained that these features categorically distinguish the legal profession from trade or business. Thus, it can’t be called a marketable exertion, the Court held. “The advocate’s profession cannot be categorised to be charged under LMV-2 ( marketable order), which is applicable to the marketable condition.” The counsel’s conditions aren’t marketable establishments, as held by the Supreme Court and by colourful High Courts. The attorneys’ chambers services shall be charged only under LMV-1 Domestic Order as the attorneys neither do any trade or business nor are involved in any marketable exertion,” the judgement stated. The Court was hearing a plea by a Tehsil Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh against the connection of marketable electricity consumption rates to attorneys’ chambers. The pleaders argued that the profession of a lawyer wasn’t a marketable exertion and that by playing a part in the administration of justice, they served society. They relied on leaflets issued by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission(UPERC), in which the bar was placed under the LMV-1 order, which is applicable to domestic distributors of electricity. The pleaders also underscored that the chambers of the Noida District Bar Association were being charged under the LMV-1 order. The counsel for Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation countered that as per the rate schedule for the fiscal year 2022–23, the conditioning of attorneys falls under non-domestic purposes’, which is to be charged for electricity consumption under the LMV–2 order. Further, it was contended that the pleaders should approach the UPERC, as the UPERC approves the rate schedules. The Court, still, noted that in the rate schedule for the fiscal year 2022–23, the conditioning of lawyers didn’t find a citation under any order. Further, it was observed that the LMV-2 order was applicable for non-domestic purposes like all types of shops( including hospices, cafes, guest houses, private conveyance hospitals, private pupil hotels,etc). In order to bring the attorneys’ services within the orders for non-domestic purposes, the exertion must be established to be of an analogous nature, as illustrated in the rate schedule under order LMV-2, the Court reasoned. Counting on the apex court’s decision in M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. v. Shiv Narayan Chopra, the Court reiterated that the legal profession is non-commercial in nature and that marketable tariff rates cannot be charged by attorneys for their work.
Written by Abhimanyu Chhibber , Kirori Mal college, Du , 5th sem, 3rd year
