( 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 26-10-2005 passed by the 9th Fast Track Court, Gondal, Camp: Dhoraji in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2004 whereby the order dated 22-10-2003 rendered below exh. 5 by the Trial Courtin Regular Civil Suit no. 270 of 2003, has been confirmed.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, necessary for the decision of the petition are that, the respondent herein, who is a practicing advocate, 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 plaintiff preferred an application at Exh. 5 for grant of an interlocutory injunction.

( 3 ) THE petitioner (original defendant) 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 22-10-2003 allowed the application at Exh. 5 filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) 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 26-10-2005, 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 ratelfd-II (for Non-residential premises), therefore, as the Office of the respondent is situated in a Commercial Complex, RATE lfd-II (for non-residential premises), is rightly being charged from the respondent. 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. R Electricity Board and others v. Shiv Narayan and another, Civil Appeal no. 1065 of 2000, dated 27-10-2005, the impugned order as well as the or