Telangana High Court
Harsh Bakers, vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
W.P.Nos.3378, 3380, 3381, 3382, 3383,
3384, 3385, 3386, 3387 & 3400 of 2008
Date: 08-07-2010
Common Order:
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who
are involved in manufacture of biscuits in the State of
Andhra Pradesh, have questioned the validity of
GO.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, whereby the State
Government of Andhra Pradesh has evolved a fresh food
policy in supersession of GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-
2003, and GO.Ms.No.55, dated 05-03-2004. The
petitioners felt aggrieved by the said GO to the extent of
restricting the benefit conferred under the earlier two GOs
in power tariff to 25% only. The petitioners have raised
the plea of promissory estoppel.
At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of this Court
rendered on 03-02-2010 in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and
4724 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge directed
that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of
concessional power tariff as provided under
G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003.
Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents, has raised two contentions (1) that a
more or less similar Writ Petition viz., W.P.No.3506 of
2006 was dismissed by another learned single Judge,
vide judgment, dated 24-02-2006, by rejecting the plea of
promissory estoppel (2) that the learned single Judge,
who rendered judgment, dated 03-02-2010, in WP.
Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, has not given a
specific finding on the scope of Section 65 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), and that therefore,
the plea raised by the respondents based on Section 65
of the Act needs to be considered by this Court before
granting any relief to the petitioners.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
In WP.No.3506 of 2006, the learned Judge, on the
facts of that case, held that as the petitioner therein has
started the industry much before issuance of
GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003, the doctrines of
legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were not
attracted to that case. The claim of the petitioners in each
of these cases is required to be considered on the basis
of the factual foundation laid by them before rendering the
findings on both these doctrines. In the judgment
rendered in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, the
learned Judge has placed reliance on certain decided
case law and following the earlier judgments, he has held
that GO.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, has no
retrospective effect and that the incentives extended
earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003, do not
stand cancelled nor have become invalidated. Therefore,
in strict sense, there is no conflict between these two sets
of judgments. However, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Standing Counsel, the learned Judge in
WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, has not dealt
with in detail the effect of the provisions of Section 65 of
the Act on the enforceability of GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14-
11-2003. In my prima facie opinion, unless the said issue
is conclusively determined, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners. As the learned Judge in WP.Nos.15939 of
2005 and 4724 of 2006, has expressed his opinion on the
merits of the cases and granted reliefs without specifically
considering the effect of Section 65 of the Act, I express
my inability to follow the said judgment. However, in my
view, judicial propriety requires that these cases are
considered and decided by a Division Bench of two
learned Judges instead of my taking an independent
view. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are referred to a
Division Bench.
The Registry shall post these Writ Petitions before
the appropriate Division Bench after obtaining necessary
orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
______________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
Date: 08-07-2010
lur
