ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-Ill) Department, dated 08.04.2022 levying Electricity Duty at Rs.1/- per unit on the energy sales to industrial and commercial consumers alone is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, discrimination and violative of Constitution of India and to set aside the notification and further direct the respondents to refund/adjust the amounts collected over and above Rs.0.06/- paisa from the petitioners towards Electricity Duty in the interest of justice and to pass and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 to 4, submitted that the order passed in the batch of writ petitions by the Coordinate Bench relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 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”

1 (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1

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 re