Advocate’s Office Not a Commercial Establishment for Electricity Tariff: Karnataka HC

K. Rama Bhat Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)

Advocate’s Office Cannot Be Treated as Commercial Establishment for Electricity Tariff: Karnataka High Court

Facts & Issue:

The petitioners challenged an order passed by BESCOM reclassifying an electricity connection sanctioned under domestic tariff (LT-1) to commercial tariff on the ground that the premises were being used as an advocate’s office. The central issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the office of a lawyer can be treated as a commercial establishment for the purpose of levying commercial electricity tariff.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners (Advocate):

The petitioners contended that the legal profession is neither a trade nor a business and therefore cannot be equated with commercial activity. Merely because an advocate uses part of a residential premises for professional work, the electricity connection cannot be reclassified as commercial.

Strong reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in V. Sasidharan v. Peter & Karunakar, wherein it was categorically held that the office of a lawyer or a firm of lawyers does not constitute a commercial establishment. It was further argued that advocacy is a regulated, ethical, and intellectual profession governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and advocates act as officers of the Court discharging a public function.

The petitioners also relied on earlier Karnataka High Court decisions, including A.V. Gangadharappa v. BESCOM, where it was held that professional offices of advocates and chartered accountants cannot be subjected to commercial electricity tariff. The demand raised by BESCOM was therefore arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to settled law.