The central legal point established in the judgment is that an advocate's office in a residential premises does not involve commercial activity and should not be charged commercial tariff for electricity consumption.

The petitioner, who is practicising as an Advocate in Nagercoil and also panel lawyer for Legal Aid and Advisory Board at Kanniyakumari District, would contend that he is having his office in a small portion of his house along with an Advocate Mr. K. Rathinasamy. The small portion of his house forms part of the office. When the petitioner applied for electricity service connection, he was directed to pay security deposit of Rs.2,500/-, treating the advocate office as a Commercial establishment. The Tariff was classified as IA for domestic purpose and Tariff V for Commercial Establishment. Since the portion of the petitioners house is utilised as an office, the tariff to be levied was classified under Tariff V and bi-monthly billing was done under Tariff V.

2. According to the petitioner, the office of the Advocate does not come under the heading "Commercial" for payment of consumption of energy at commercial rate. The profession of an advocate is different from commercial activity. According to him, the Advocate profession is a professional activity and he has to apply his professional skill as against the commercial or business activities and therefore, the tariff categorisation for having utilised a small portion of his house for the purpose of his profession is unlawful, illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment reported in (V. Sasidharan vs. M/s. Peter and Karunakar and others) AIR 1984 SCC 1700 wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Office of a Lawyer or Firm of a Lawyer is not a Commercial Establishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in (Shiv Narayan and another vs. M.P. Electricity Board and others) AIR 1999 MP 246 in which it was held that classification of Advocate and Vakkil under the heading "Commercial" for payment of consumption of electricity energy at commercial rate is arbitrary and irrational and ultra vires of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

4. According to the petitioner, Section 49 (2) (a) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 clearly stipulates that while fixing the uniform tariff, the Electricity Board has to see the nature of supply and the purpose for which the energy is required. Therefore, inasmuch as there is no commercial activity involved in running the office of an advocate, the entry in the Metre card under Tariff V is wrong. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reclassify the service connection to the petitioners office in H6-274 as domestic tariff IA instead of Tariff V.

5. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. The learned standing counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is a Lawyer by profession and he has been conducting his business in a part of portion of his house. Hence, the classification made by the respondents under the category of business premises is valid and in accordance with law.

6. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is

i) Whether an Advocate, who has his Office in his residential premises is liable to pay the electricity energy consumed under commercial tariff?

ii) Whether there is any commercial activity involved in the office of a lawyer, especially when the office is being run at the house of the petitioner for consultating purpose with his client?

7. The main ground of attack by the petitioner is a portion of his house is being utilised for the purpose of consulting, meeting his client and preparation of the case. While so, the discharge of his professional activity was erroneously construed as that of commercial activity by the respondents thereby they have classified the said activity for the purpose of collection of consumption charges as Commercial Establishment. 8. The con