SYED TAJUDDEEN MADANI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(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.4,000.00 was collected from the 2nd Appellant and the 2nd Appellant is also said to have agreed to pay the consumption charges.

(3.) 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.75,490.00 in the event of the clarifications issued by the Regulatory Commission going against the claim of the Appellants.