JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both the petitioners who are husband and wife, are Advocates by profession. Their office is situated at Navjeevan Chambers where they do not reside. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have been charging the electricity tariff under Non-domestic category. The petitioners therefore, have approached this court with the following prayer:- (i) to direct the respondents not to charge the electricity tariff under Non-domentic category and to charge the same at the prevailing domestic rates from the petitioners for the supply being made in their office which is being used by them as an Advocate's office. (ii) to direct the respondents to compute and refund the excess amount charged and received by them at commercial rates till now. 2. Undisputed facts are that petitioner Parinitoo Jain has applied for release of electricity connection in the category of "Advocates office" and as per "Tariff for Supply of Electricity 2001 the office of an Advocate, not situated in his residence comes under Non-domestic service category (for short NDSC). The petitioner without any protest used to make the payment of electricity bills under NDSC. It is only after the judgment rendered in Sajjan Raj Surana vs. JVVNL (2002 (1) RLR 190 = 2002 (2) WLC (Raj.) 191) that notice for demand of justice was served on the respondents and instant petition has been instituted by the petitioners. 3. In Sajjan Raj Surana's case (supra) that was decided on December 18, 2001 this court indicated thus : "Thus categorisation and inclusion of profession of a lawyer as a commercial establishment or non-domestic service by the defendant (RSEB) or the respondent (JVVNL) for the purpose of payment of electricity consumption at commercial rate or non-domestic service charges under its any of the Tariffs of 1981 or 1985 or 2001 is absolutely illegal, irrational and arbitrary and therefore it is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 4. I have heard the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. 5. I am of the view that the lawyer's profession is not a commercial activity and the tariff imposed by the respondents JVVNL to cover the office of a lawyer as commercial establishment can not be termed as correct categorisation. Lawyers do not render services to customers, they also do not carry on a trade or business. 5. I am of the view that the lawyer's profession is not a commercial activity and the tariff imposed by the respondents JVVNL to cover the office of a lawyer as commercial establishment can not be termed as correct categorisation. Lawyers do not render services to customers, they also do not carry on a trade or business. A lawyer may run his office at his residence or at a rented premises. Both the situation are alike and cannot be categorised differently. I fully endorse the view expressed in Sajjan Raj Surana's case. In my opinion judgment rendered in Sajjan Raj Surana's case is a judgment in rem and ratio indicated in the said judgment is applicable to the petitioners and other similarly situated Advocates. 6. For the reasons aforementioned I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents not to charge the electricity tariff under Non-domestic Service category. The respondents are further directed to charge the electricity tariff from the petitioners at the prevailing domestic rates and to compute and refund the excess amount received by them uptill now to the petitioners. Compliance of this order shall be made within sixty days from today. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******