The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that an advocate operating an office from his residential premises cannot be asked to pay electricity charges at commercial rates. The court held that the legal profession cannot automatically be treated as a commercial activity merely because professional work is carried out from home.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by advocate Santosh Agrawal after the electricity distribution company classified his home office as a commercial establishment and issued bills on commercial tariff rates through orders dated December 31, 2020.
Appearing in person, the petitioner argued that advocacy is a professional service based on personal skill and knowledge, not a trading or business activity. He contended that since the office was functioning within his residential premises, the electricity connection should continue to be billed under residential tariff.
The petitioner relied on earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Madras High Court which drew a distinction between offices operating from residential premises and those functioning in independent commercial spaces.
On the other hand, counsel for the electricity company referred to a Supreme Court ruling to argue that any non-domestic use would attract commercial tariff.
Court’s Observation
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke examined the Supreme Court judgment cited by the electricity company and observed that the earlier ruling mainly dealt with “non-domestic use” of premises and did not directly decide whether the legal profession itself amounted to a commercial activity.
The court then referred to previous judgments discussing the meaning of “commerce” and “commercial activity.” It noted that commercial activity generally involves buying, selling, trade, or traffic, which cannot be equated with the practice of law.
Quoting from an earlier ruling, the bench observed, “A professional activity must be an activity carried on by an individual by his personal skill and intelligence. There is a fundamental distinction, therefore, between a professional activity and an activity of a commercial character.”
The court further noted that advocates working from residential premises stand on a different footing from those running offices in independent commercial buildings.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the electricity company’s orders and held that the petitioner was liable to pay electricity charges only at residential rates for the office functioning from his home.
“The office of Advocate cannot be said to be a commercial activity, provided the same is situated in residential premises,” the court said while directing the authorities to issue revised bills at residential tariff rates.
Case Details
Case Title: Santosh Agrawal v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1507 of 2021
Judge: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
