EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for 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 petitioner's 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.) 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.