IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.29161 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. K. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, NO.19, FIRST FLOOR, SOUTH END ROAD – LINK ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.

2. SMT. MANJULA RAMASHESHA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAMASHESHA SHARMA, NO.19, SOUTH END ROAD – LINK ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHRIHARI K., ADVOCATE FOR Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M SRI THRIBHUVAN K., ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (WHOLLY OWNED BY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER /

ASSESSING OFFICER, C2 SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, MALLESHWARAM 13^TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI G. NARASI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI THARANGINI M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (V/C))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND THEREBY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER NO.AEE(V)/C2 SD/2024-25/3122/23 DATED 30.09.2024 ISSUED BY

2^ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayers:

“i) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby to set aside the Order No.AEE(V)/C2 SD/2024-25/3122/23 dated 30.09.2024 issued by

2^nd Respondent as per Annexure-A and ii) To grant such other and further relief so as to cost of proceedings throughout in the interest of justice.”

2. Petitioner No.1 is an advocate and a tenant in respect of first floor of property bearing No.19, South End Road, Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru. The said premises is connected with an electricity meter sanctioned under residential tariff LT1, with sanctioned load of 2 KW + 0 HP vide RR No.C2EH 16190, Khatha No.1451453000. The petitioners contend that they have been regularly paying the electricity charges to respondent No.2 and that no arrears are due.

3. It is stated that respondent No.2 inspected the premises and reported that although the supply meter was functioning properly, petitioner No.1 was using the premises as an advocate’s office, and therefore, the power supply was liable to be charged under the commercial tariff, treating it as a case of misuse of tariff (MOT).

4. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation objecting to such classification. However, without considering their reply, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 31.09.2024, reclassifying the connection under commercial tariff and demanding Rs.16,367.70/-, after adjusting the amount already paid under residential tariff.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the use of premises by an advocate for professional purposes does not amount to a commercial activity, and the connection sanctioned for domestic purposes cannot be reclassified. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V. Sasidharan Vs. Peter and Karunakar and others, 1984 AIR 1700 (V. Sasidharan) to contend that the profession of law is not a business or trade within the meaning of the term ‘commercial establishment’. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of A.V. Gangadharappa Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., and others, WP No.40975/2013 D.D. 04.02.2015 (A.V. Gangadharappa), wherein this Court, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V. Sasidharan and the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Singhvi Dev and Unni Charters Accountants Vs. The Regional Director, ESI