M/S. Sri Seetharama Raw And Boiled ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4951 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4951 AP
Judgement Date : 13 October, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Sri Seetharama Raw And Boiled ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 October, 2023

                                    1



       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                 WRIT PETITION No.27002 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

"....pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.4.2022 by exorbitantly increasing the levy of electricity duty from Rs.0.06 per unit to Rs.1.00 on the energy sales made to the commercial and industrial consumers in the state of A.P in colourable exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electrical Duty Act 1939 as revised from time to time and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in levying electrical duty at the enhanced rate interalia by raising the H.T. bills from April 2022 payable on 05.5.2022 and continuously to all the H.T.Industrial consumers including H.T.industry as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to common order on tariff for retail sale of electricity during the financial year 2022-23, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and contrary to law and thus to consequently set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.4.2022 as well as the aforesaid H.T. electricity bills issued to our M/s. Coastal Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., situated at Mandapaka (V) Tanuku (M) West Godavari District from April 2022 and continuously as on this date to the extent of enhanced electricity duty by directing the 2nd respondent to refund/adjust the excess electricity duty paid by our H.T. S.C.No.RJY 475 from the month of April 2022 as on this date and not to levy electricity duty at the enhanced rate immediately for all future electricity charges payable by our industry to the 2nd respondent and to pass..."

2. Heard Sri P.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy

appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Metta Chandrasekhara

Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri

P.Narasimha Rao, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has partly allowed batch

of writ petitions on 15.9.2023 vide W.P.No.16619 of 2022 and

batch and the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely

covered by the order passed in W.P.No.16619 of 2022 and batch.

The Coordinate Bench order is placed on record and draw the

attention of this Court.

4. To the said submissions, Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao,

learned standing counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the

orders passed in the batch of writ petitions by the Coordinate

Bench as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not

binding on the subsequent benches and a counter is required to

be filed in the present writ petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in between Dr. Shah Faesal

and others vs. Union of India and another1 and draws the

attention of this Court to paragraph numbers 23 and 24 which

reads as follows:

23. This brings us to the question, as to whether a ruling of a coordinate Bench binds subsequent coordinate Benches. It is now a settled principle of law that the decisions rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. The aforesaid view is reinforced in

(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1

the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein this Court held that:

59.1. The two Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 7] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been Stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench"

24. The impact of non-consideration of an earlier precedent by a coordinate Bench is succinctly delineated by Salmond in his book in the following manner:

...A refusal to follow a precedent, on the other hand, is an act of coordinate, not of superior, jurisdiction. Two courts of equal authority have no power to overrule each other's decisions. Where a precedent is merely not followed, the result is not that the later authority is substituted for the earlier, but that the two stand side by side conflicting with each other. The legal antinomy thus produced must be solved by the act of a higher authority, which will in due time decide between the competing precedents, formally overruling one of them, and sanctioning the other as good law. In the meantime the matter remains at large, and the law uncertain.

6. A perusal of the relief sought in the batch of writ petitions

i.e. W.P.No.16619 of 2022 and batch and the relief sought in the

present writ petition is one and the same. As such, prayed to

consider the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16619 of 2022

and batch wherein this Court has partly allowed the said batch of

writ petitions. No reasons are coming forward as to why a counter

is required to be filed in the present writ petition. The judgment

rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as referred to

supra, is applicable to the facts of this case and this Court is

inclined to pass the same order as passed in the batch of writ

petitions vide W.P.No.16619 of 2022 and batch by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court.