1. This petition has been preferred invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 30-12-2004 passed by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge,Junagadh in Civil Misc.Appeal No.80 of 2003 whereby the order dated 17-09-2003 rendered below Exh.5 by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.335 of 2003, has been confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the decision of the petition are that, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are practicing advocates, and respondent No.3-Bar Association, filed the above mentioned Civil Suit, inter alia, praying for the relief of declaration that the Office of an advocate should be billed as per the “residential” Tariff by the defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board (now “Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.), who is the respondent in the petition (referred to as “the Electricity Company” for sort). Along with the Suit, the plaintiffs preferred an application at Exh.5 for grant of an interlocutory injunction.

3. The petitioner(original defendant No.1) filed its reply to the said application, contending that as per the Tariff Order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (“GERC” for short), the Office of Advocate is required to be charged as per RATE LFD-II category, which applies to “non-residential” premises such as shops, work shops, hotels restaurants, show rooms, offices, etc. The Trial Court, by order dated 17-09-2003, allowed the application at Exh.5 filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3(original plaintiffs) by holding that the activities carried on by an advocate cannot be said to be “commercial” in nature, therefore, the Office of an advocate cannot be billed as per “non-residential” Tariff by the Electricity Company. The petitioner-Electricity Company preferred an appeal before the District Court, which has been dismissed by passing the impugned judgment dated 31-12-2004, confirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-Electricity Company has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Ms.Lilu K.Bhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the lower Appellate Court is erroneous, as is the order of the Trial Court, as both the Courts below have erred by misreading and misconstruing the pleadings of parties as well as the material on record. That the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the GERC, in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act,1988, is empowered to determine the Tariff and the petitioner-Electricity Company has acted in accordance with the Tariff determined by the GERC. That both the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the Tariff rates applicable to the consumers of the petitioner-Company are effective from 10-10-2000, vide orders dated 10-10-2000 and 22-12-2000, for supply of electricity at Low Tension. The Schedule of Tariff for supply of Low and Medium Voltage is classified into various categories, namely, RATE LFD-I(for Residential premises), and RATE LFD-II (for Nonresidential premises), therefore, as the Offices of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are situated in a Commercial Complex, RATE LFD-II (for non-residential premises), is rightly being charged from the said respondents. That the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have exceeded their jurisdiction while interpreting the term “Office” and holding that activities carried on by an advocate are not “commercial” activities, as this question is not relevant for determining the category for billing and has not been gone into by the Supreme Court in the decision of the larger Bench, which now holds the field. That as the orders of the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of the Larger Bench in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and others v. Shiv Narayan and another, Civil Appeal No.10