O R D E R

The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the action of the Electricity Board in levying a provisional assessment on the petitioners, treating the use as commercial and charging at rates specified under the tariff LT-V.

2.The petitioners, who are practising Lawyers are occuping an apartment measuring about 357 Sq.ft. situated in ground floor of a residential apartment building at No.12, Nagireddy Street, Valasarawakkam. The petitioners were assigned LT Tariff I-A and had been paying the electricity bills based on the said premise. The premises of the petitioners was inspected on 31.01.2019 at about 12.40 p.m. and the Department found that the entire apartment was being used as a Lawyers' Office and hence, the levy should be under LT Tariff-V and not Tariff I-A. The petitioners were present at the time of the said inspection. They also paid compounding fee as well as the difference between the rates of Tariff I-A and Tariff-V for the one year, prior to the date of inspection. The respondent / TANGEDCO also passed an order stating that it is Tariff-V that would apply to the petitioners, since the petitioners are using the entire apartment for their Office purpose and required the petitioners to pay current consumption charges at the rates specified in LT-V instead of LT I-A.

3.Mrs.Saraswathi Muthiah, the 2nd petitioner appearing in person would vehemently contend that the premise, on which, the petitioners have been charged is incorrect. According to her, since it is a residential building and the petitioners are using an area of less than 200 Sq.ft., for their Office purpose, they would only fall within LT I-A and not LT-V. She would also contend that de hors the fact whether they are using the entire premises as Office or a portion of it as Office, if the area occupied is less than 200 Sq.ft, tariff under LT I-A alone would apply and not LT-V.

4.Contending contra, Ms.V.Revathy appearing for Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the question as to whether a particular user is commercial or residential or professional or non-professional would not arise in the given circumstances. According to her, as per the tarrif rates approved by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC), the tariff prescribed in LT I-A woud be availed only if it is shown that the user falls within the purposes shown as A to M in the tariff rates approved by the TNERC. If it does not fall within the classifications mentioned in the Paragraph 6.2.2.1 of the tariff rates, the holder of the service connection or the consumer has to pay the rates prescribed in LT-V. She would further submit that as per clause 'g' of Paragarph 6.2.2.1 tarrif LT I-A could be applied only if the consulting room or the Office of the professional forms part of his or her residential house and the space occupied does not exceed 200 Sq.ft. Arguing further, the learned counsel would submit that if it is a stand alone Office, which is used only for Office purposes of a Lawyer or a Chartered Accountant, immaterial of the size, the consumer has to pay the charges prescribed under LT-V.

5.Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that this question as to whether a Lawyer's Office is a commercial use or not has been considered by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. He would submit that the TNERC had clarified that if it is part of the residence of the professional and area exceeds 200 Sq.ft in occupation then, LT-V will apply and if the area is less than 200 Sq.ft., LT Tariff I-A could be applied. If it is a stand alone Office, be it a part of a residential complex or an independent building or a commercial complex, irrespective of the size, LT-V will apply.

6.He would also draw my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian in Syed Tajudeen Madani Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2011 SCC