IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13480 of 2005 Date: 28th September, 2010 Between: M/s RVR Associates, Solicitors and Advocates, rep. by its Managing Partner. .. Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer (Operations), Central Circle, CPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13480 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: The simple question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the electricity consumed by an Advocate’s office shall be charged as that of a commercial establishment or of a domestic one. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1065 of 2000 dated 27.10.2005 while relying upon a judgment in NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL V. SOHAN LAL SACHDEV[1], wherein it was held that an Advocate’s office can neither be classified as a commercial unit or a domestic one and held that the Advocates cannot be said to be carrying on commercial activity. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 5.5.2005 treating the Advocate’s office as a commercial unit needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.9.2010 DA [1] 2002(2) SCC 494