M/S. Sri Vinayaka Ice Plant vs The State Of Ap
2024 Latest Caselaw 4800 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4800 AP
Judgement Date : 26 June, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Sri Vinayaka Ice Plant vs The State Of Ap on 26 June, 2024

  APHC010258382024


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI             [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                      PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
                     NIMMAGADDA

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 12962/2024

Between:

M/s. Sri Vinayaka Ice Plant                                    ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

The State Of Ap and Others                               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

    1. A V S LAXMI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

    1. GP FOR ENERGY

The Court made the following:


ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed 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 and consequent action of the 2nd respondent in levying/recovering electricity duty at the enhanced rate interalia by raising the L.T. bills from April 2022 to June 2023 in respect of LT SC No..1531492101001726 and HT Bills from the month of July 2023 to March 2024 in respect of Service Nos.ELR 1410 of the petitioner without sanction of the Government after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.4.2022 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, excessive, violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the constitution of India, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law and to consequently set aside the G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-III) Department dated 08.4.2022 as well as the aforesaid L.T. and H.T. bills issued by 2nd respondent from April 2022 to March 2024 to the extent of the enhanced electricity duty by directing the 2nd respondent and to refund the excess electricity duty paid up to the month of March 2024 and not to levy electricity duty at enhanced rate of Rs.1/- any more on the petitioner for subsequent months in respect of Service No.ELR 1410 to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Energy appearing for respondent No.1

and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

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

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench of

this Court has partly allowed the 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 and prayed to pass similar

orders. The Coordinate Bench order is placed on record and has

drawn the attention of this Court to the same.

4. In reply, Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned standing

counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, submitted that the order

passed in the batch of writ petitions by the Coordinate Bench

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not binding

on the subsequent Coordinate benches of equal strength and a

counter is required to be filed in the present writ petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a

ruling of a coordinate bench binds the orders of the subsequent

coordinate benches and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in between Dr. Shah Faesal and others vs. Union

of India and another1 and has drawn the attention of this Court

to paras 23 and 24, which read 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

(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 decisions rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength. The aforesaid view is reinforced in the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 I 680 wherein this Court held that:

59.1. The two Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 I 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 I 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. The observations made in the above referred decision

enunciate a principle of law that the decisions rendered by a

coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal

or lesser strength.

7. Perusal of the material placed on record would indicate

that the relief sought in 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 and all the writ petitions were filed challenging the

validity of G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-II) Department, dated

08.04.2022. A Coordinate Bench of this court has partly allowed

W.P.No.16619 of 2022 and batch dealing with the similar issue.

Thus the objection raised by the learned Standing counsel is not