The main legal point established in the judgment is that the office of a lawyer is not necessarily a commercial establishment for the purpose of electricity tariff and may require clarification from the regulatory commission.

R.BANUMATHI,J

1. Whether the office of a Lawyer is a commercial establishment and thus liable to be charged for the use of electricity under Tariff–V at the rate applicable to commercial consumption is the point falling for consideration in this appeal.

2. Brief facts are that 2nd Appellant -N.Vittobai is the owner of the property at No.6, First Cross Street, Anaikatti Maidan, Beema Nagar, Trichy-1. 2nd Appellant is using the ground floor portion of the said property as her residence. First floor portion was let out to the 1st Appellant who is a practising Advocate for running his office. While taking the meter reading in the month of August 2010, the Assessor of the Electricity Board noticed use of first floor premises as an Advocate office and reported the matter to the 4th Respondent - The Assistant Executive Engineer, O & M/Urban, TNEB, Trichy-1. Thereafter, the Enforcement Wing of Respondents' Board had made a surprise inspection of the premises in question on 25.09.2010 and claimed that the payment of domestic Tariff was unlawful. Immediately, a compounding fee of Rs.4,000/- was collected from the 2nd Appellant and the 2nd Appellant is also said to have agreed to pay the consumption charges.

3. Fourth Respondent raised a demand by the impugned communication dated 27.09.2010 raising provisional assessment charges to the tune of Rs.90,490/-. Out of the said amount, 1st Appellant paid Rs.15,000/-. Challenging the said demand, Appellants have filed W.P.(MD) No.12587 of 2010. In the Writ Petition, Respondents contended that the LT Tariff 1-A is applicable only to the buildings used for residential purposes. Respondents' Board also contended that Tariff 1-A is applicable only if the consulting rooms of any professionals are attached to the residence of such professionals, provided no trading is undertaken. Since the office of the 1st Appellant is not attached to his own residence, it would not come under the category of LT Tariff 1-A.

4. Learned Judge observed that there is no rationale behind limiting the application of Tariff I-A only to those Advocates having consultation rooms in their own residences and not extending the same benefit to those having consultation rooms in the residences of other people. However, observing that action of the Respondents in treating the Advocate's office located in places other than his own residence as not coming under Tariff I-A, but coming under Tariff V, is in accordance with the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission by virtue of Section 86(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Appellants to make a representation to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) of the Act seeking for clarification. Since the 2nd Appellant wanted to demolish the premises and the request for disconnection are pending, the learned Judge directed the Appellants to execute personal bonds for payment of the balance amount of demand of Rs.75,490/- in the event of the clarifications issued by the Regulatory Commission going against the claim of the Appellants.

5. Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for Appellants contended that the usage of portion of the house as consultation room by itself will not make the user of the premises commercial and use of energy for the purpose of Advocate office will not constitute “theft”. It was further contended that the major usage of the building is for residential purpose of the 2nd Appellant and the 1st Appellant is using the first floor for consultation purposes alone and would not in any way become “commercial” in nature. Learned counsel for Appellants then contended that having found that there is no difference between “Advocate office” run in his residence or in the house of another, learned Judge ought not to have directed the Appellants to approach the Electricity Regulatory Commission.

6. Drawing our attention to the classification of Low Tension Consumers fo