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

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that advocates running offices from their homes cannot be charged commercial electricity tariffs merely because they use part of their residence for professional work, holding that the legal profession cannot be equated with trade or business activities.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the order while allowing a petition filed by advocate Santosh Agrawal against Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhut Vitran Company Limited and other authorities.

The dispute arose after the electricity distribution company issued orders on December 31, 2020, categorising the petitioner’s office, functioning from his residential premises in Gwalior, as a commercial establishment. Based on that classification, the authorities directed him to pay electricity charges at commercial rates instead of residential tariffs. Agrawal, appearing in person, challenged the orders before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Before the Court, Agrawal argued that an advocate’s office operating from a residence could not be treated as a commercial activity because the legal profession does not involve buying, selling, or trading. He relied upon previous judicial decisions distinguishing professional work from commercial enterprises. He also submitted that advocates working from independent commercial premises could be treated differently, but residential offices deserved protection from commercial tariff rates.

Counsel for the electricity company, Narottam Sharma, opposed the petition and relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shiv Narayan. It was argued that since the office use was admittedly “non-domestic”, it attracted commercial electricity charges under the applicable tariff structure.

After hearing both sides, the High Court examined earlier decisions dealing with the distinction between professional and commercial activities. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Dheeraj Singh vs. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, where it had analysed the meaning of the words “commerce” and “commercial” using Black’s Law Dictionary. The Court reiterated that commercial activity necessarily carries the concept of trade, traffic, buying, or selling, which is absent in the legal profession.

Quoting from the earlier judgment, the Court observed, “In legal profession, there is no such kind of buying or selling nor any trading of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, to compare legal profession with that of trade and business is a far from correct approach and it will totally be misplaced.”

The Court further noted that professional activity is based on an individual’s personal skill and intelligence, making it fundamentally different from commercial activity. Justice Phadke also relied upon a Madras High Court decision in K. Kanagasabai vs. The Superintending Engineer, Kanniyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, which had similarly held that advocates operating offices from residential premises could not be subjected to commercial electricity tariffs.

Referring to the distinction between residential and commercial premises, the Court said advocates running offices from independent commercial spaces may not be exempt from higher tariffs. However, offices functioning within residential homes stand on a different footing.

The Court ultimately held that the electricity company had committed “material illegality” by levying commercial electricity charges upon the petitioner. Setting aside the impugned orders, the Court directed the authorities to issue revised electricity bills at residential rates. It further declared that the petitioner was liable to pay only residential electricity charges for the office functioning from his home.

Case Title: Santosh Agrawal v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Ksheta Vidhut Vitran Com. Ltd. and Others

Date of Order: May 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke