MP High Court Says Advocates Running Office From Home Cannot Be Charged Commercial Electricity Tariff

In Santosh Agrawal v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that advocates operating offices from their residential premises cannot be charged electricity bills at commercial tariff rates.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that the legal profession is not a commercial activity when practiced from a residence. The Court said that merely running an advocate’s office from home does not change the nature of the premises from residential to commercial.

The case was filed by advocate Santosh Agrawal, who challenged the decision of the state electricity company to classify his home office as “non-domestic” and levy higher commercial electricity charges. The electricity provider had passed orders in December 2020 treating the use of electricity for the office as commercial in nature.

Rejecting this approach, the High Court observed that there is a clear distinction between professional activity and commercial business activity. It noted that legal practice depends on individual skill and professional expertise rather than trade or business transactions.

The Court clarified that if an advocate runs an office from a commercial building, then commercial electricity tariffs may apply. However, where the office is situated within a residential premises, charging commercial rates would be illegal.

The Court stated:

“By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Advocate is liable to pay electricity dues at commercial rates for the office run at his residence.”

The High Court also examined earlier judicial precedents. It said the Supreme Court ruling in Chairman, MP Electricity Board v Shiv Narayan dealt with the issue of domestic versus non-domestic use but did not decide whether the legal profession itself amounts to a commercial activity.

The Court further relied on earlier observations distinguishing professional services from commercial enterprises. It referred to cases explaining that professions based on personal qualifications and skills cannot automatically be equated with business or trade.

Holding the electricity company’s action to be legally unsustainable, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the authorities to issue electricity bills at residential tariff rates for the petitioner’s premises.

Advocate Santosh Agrawal appeared in person before the Court, while Advocate Narottam Sharma represented the electricity distribution company.