IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2796 of 2005 Between: Ch. Pramodh … Petitioner And The Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL Distribution-1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Satyanarayana Counsel for the respondent: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2796 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notices dated 01.01.2005 and 01.02.2005 issued by the respondent whereby the consumption made by the petitioner is billed under Category-II (Non-domestic). The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent to collect charges under Category-I (domestic). The petitioner is stated to be occupying the first floor of premises bearing Door No.11-62-113, Canal Road, Vijayawada. He averred that while he is using a part of the said premises for residential purpose, the other part is being used for carrying on his profession of Chartered Accountancy. The petitioner questioned levy of electricity charges by treating the consumption under non-domestic and commercial category. At the hearing, Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on judgment dated 26.09.2006 of this Court in Writ Petition No.18535 of 2006, wherein this Court directed the respondents to treat the office of the Chartered Accountant as falling under Category-I (domestic) and collect the electricity charges accordingly. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and others vs. Shiv Narayan and another[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that the office of an advocate cannot be treated under domestic category and that as the purpose of consumption was non-domestic, levy of tariff under commercial and non-domestic category cannot be treated as illegal. After careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and others (supra), the judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no avail to his client. In M.P. Electricity Board and others (supra), the Supreme Court while leaving the question whether an advocate can be said to be carrying on commercial activity open, however, upheld the levy of tariff under commercial and non-domestic category. The same analogy applies to the present case where the petitioner’s premises is classified under non-domestic and commercial category. Even if the petitioner’s contention that he is not carrying on commercial activities is accepted, still it cannot be said that the electricity consumed for running the office is used for domestic purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the premises is common, which is used both for residential and office purpose, the entire consumption cannot be treated for non-domestic purpose. The learned Standing counsel has placed before the Court the inspection notes, which purportedly contains the statement of the petitioner under his signature that his service is being used for office purpose and one room is being used for rest. In my opinion, if the petitioner is able to establish that a part of the premises is used for domestic purpose, he is entitled to pay the electricity charges at domestic tariff rates to that extent. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation in this regard to the officer concerned and if such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and an appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.07.2010 ES [1] (2005) 7 SCC 283