HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1169 of 2003 DATE:30-11-2010 BETWEEN The A.P.Transco Ltd., rep., by its M.D., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad & Others …Appellants AND Suryanarayana @ Ravishanker Palagummi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1169 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 26.8.2002 in allowing W.P.No.797 of 2001 holding that conversion of the service connection of the writ petitioner from domestic category to commercial category is illegal and quashed the assessment notice treating the connection as a commercial category. It is not in dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and residing in Flat No.205, H.No.6-2-975, Kushal Towers, Khairatabad, for which, he obtained electric service connection which is being used partly for residential purpose and also for professional purpose by running his office. While so, the officials of A.P. Transco visited the flat of the writ petitioner on 01.12.2000 and informed the writ petitioner that the service connection of the petitioner comes under commercial category and that they replaced the existing meter with a new meter for the purpose of getting it tested and that they found that the old meter was working normally. Thereafter, the Assistant Divisional Engineer of A.P.Transco issued impugned notice, dated 4.1.2001 alleging that the service connection is being used for commercial purpose and provisionally estimated the value of the energy pilfered as Rs.54,130/-. Questioning the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Placed reliance on a decision in S.V.G.Ratna Gupta v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein this Court held that the Chartered Accountant’s office is not commercial establishment irrespective of where it carried on or whether staff are employed or not. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in V.Sasidharan v. M/s Peter and Karunakar[2], it was further observed that the doctors, lawyers or chartered accountants, even if they employ certain staff, do not partake the character of commercial establishment. The same view was taken in K.Gopalakrishnan v. Assistant Inspector of Labour (Asst. Labour Officer)[3]. Relying upon the said decisions, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition. The Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board and Others v. Shiv Narayan and Another[4] did not agree with the earlier view expressed by it in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Sohan Lal Sachdev[5] and referred the matter to the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, by order, dated 27.20.2005 in Civil Appeal No.1065 of 2000 held that the Tariff entry classificates into two categories viz. (a) “domestic Purposes” and (b) “commercial and non- domestic purposes”; that the said classification has been done statutorily in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948; and that the classification clubs “commercial and non-domestic purposes” into one category. Thus the question whether an Advocate can be said to be carrying on a commercial activity does not arise for consideration. As the user is admittedly not “domestic” it would fall in the category of “commercial and non-domestic” and in such cases even for “non-domestic” use the commercial rates are to be charged and exclusively running an office is clearly a “non-domestic” use. Holding so, it was held that the judgment rendered by it in Sohan Lal Sachdev (5 supra) is correct and requires no consideration. Once it is accepted that the consumer-writ petitioner is running a Chartered Accountant office in the flat owned by him, it definitely falls under the commercial and non-domestic category. Sri M.S.Ramachander Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly conceded that in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to supra, the writ petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2010 Tsr. [1] 1993 (2) A.P.L.J. 157 (HC) [2] AIR 1984 SC 1700 [3] 2000 (6) ALD 214 [4] (2005) 7 SCC 283 [5] (2000) 2 SCC 494