Summary of Judgment –
Santosh Agrawal v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench
Decided on: 11 May 2026
Before: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Writ Petition No. 1507 of 2021
Core Issue
Whether an advocate running his office from his residential premises can be charged electricity tariff at commercial rates.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Advocate Santosh Agrawal, was using a portion of his residence as his law office. The electricity department passed orders dated 31.12.2020 treating the premises as being used for “commercial activity” and demanded electricity charges at commercial tariff rates.
The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- Legal profession is not a “commercial activity”.
- An advocate using part of his residence as office does not convert the residential premises into a commercial establishment.
- Professional services based on personal skill and intelligence are fundamentally different from trade or business activities.
- Reliance was placed on:
- Dheeraj Singh v. Hemant Kumar Sharma
- K. Kanagasabai v. Superintending Engineer (Madras High Court)
Respondents’ Stand
The electricity company relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:
- Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan
and argued that since the premises were being used for “non-domestic” purposes, commercial tariff was applicable.
Findings of the High Court
1. Legal Profession is Not Commercial Trade
The Court held that “commerce” involves buying, selling, trade, or traffic. Legal practice does not involve such commercial trading activity.
The Court emphasized:
A professional activity carried on by personal skill and intelligence is distinct from a commercial activity.
2. Distinction Between Residential Office and Commercial Premises
The Court clarified that:
- If an advocate runs office from a residential house → residential tariff applies.
- If the office is situated in an independent commercial building → commercial tariff may apply.
3. Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment
The High Court observed that the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Narayan mainly dealt with “domestic” versus “non-domestic” use and did not conclusively hold that legal profession itself is a commercial activity.
Final Decision
The High Court:
- Set aside the impugned orders imposing commercial tariff.
- Directed the electricity department to charge electricity dues at residential rates for the advocate’s office situated within his residence.
Important Legal Principle Evolved
An advocate using part of his residence as office cannot automatically be treated as carrying on commercial activity for the purpose of electricity tariff.
Practical Significance
This judgment is important for:
- Advocates
- Doctors
- Professionals working from home
- Mixed residential-professional use disputes
It strengthens the distinction between:
- Professional occupation, and
- Commercial/business activity.
Follow on Social Media Youtube Link www.youtube.com/@SajjadHusainLawAssociates Facebook Page Link https://www.facebook.com/advocatesajjadofficial Insta Link https://www.instagram.com/sajjad_husain_law_associates/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/sajjad-husain-associates-law WhatsApp Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Google My Business Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard Twitter Link https://twitter.com/home E-mail ID advocatesajjad@mail.com visit & contact detail www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com E-Mail ID sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India WhatsApp, IMO, Telegram & Calling PhonePe, Googlepay, Paytm No. 7080909786
https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/344