Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11017
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
M/s. Hyundai Engineering Plastics India Private Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition | 14408 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. M Suguna
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Energy, Sri K.V. Rama Rao
Administrative decisions must maintain reasonableness to uphold constitutional rights during litigation.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1939 - Section 3(1) - Writ of Mandamus - Challenge to G.O.Ms.No.7 increasing electricity duty from Re.0.06 to Re.1.00 per unit as arbitrary and unreasonable - Court emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and reasonableness in administrative decision-making. (Paras 3, 6)
(B) Interim Orders - Continuing to collect duty at prior rate during adjudication of related matters - Ensures fairness and avoids undue hardship on the petitioner while the main issue is considered. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the legality of an increase in electricity duty via G.O.Ms.No.7, labeling it a violation of rights under Articles 14 and 21, arguing the change was excessive and unreasonable, particularly in light of ongoing related litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court preferred to maintain the status quo, allowing the petitioner to pay electricity duty at the previous rate while related matters were being resolved, ensuring that rights were not unduly impaired in the interim.
Issues: Whether the increase in electricity duty was arbitrary or violative of constitutional rights, and the implications of pending related cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative decisions must be reasonable and justifiable, emphasizing the protection of rights during ongoing litigation; maintaining the prior rate of duty preserves fairness for the petitioner.
Result: The court ordered the matter to be re-listed for further consideration on a specified date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the duty increase. (Para 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT-OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMA (spECIAL''ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT:I, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14408 OF 2025 Between :
M/s. Hyundai Engineering Plastics India Private Ltd, Consumer No. TPT 2598, 1350, Thespia Drive, Sri City, Mopurapalli Village Sri City, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Director ln CheoI Cha.
...Writ Petitioner ///
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Srinivasapuram Thiruchanur Road, Tirupatl', Tirupati Dist. Rep by its Chairman and Managing Dl-rector.
3. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, OP Circle, OP Circle, Tirupathi, Tirupa{hi Dist., Rep, by its Senior Accounts Officer. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the lst respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7 Energy (power-Ill) Department dated 08.04.2022 exorbitantly increasing the levy of electricity duty from Re.0.06 per unit of Re. 1.00 per unit, against writ petitioner in colorable exercise of the powers conferred under See.3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electrl-cl'ty Duty Act,1939 is as arbitrary, unreasonable excessive, viola{ive of Art 14 & 21 of the +~
Fc:
onstitution of India, contra.ry to the National Tariff Policy, 2016 and consequently Set aside G.O.Ms.No.7 energy (Power-Ill) Department Dt.08.04.2022 in so far as writ petl-tioner.
IANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in-the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prays to suspend the operations of G.O.Ms.No.7; Energy (Power -Ill) Department Dt.08.04.2022 issued by the lSt respondent in so far as Writ petitioner, Pending disposal of WP 14408 of 2025, on the fl-le of the High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arg-uments of M/s.M SUGUNA Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Government Pleader for Energy for the Respondent No.1, and of Sri K.V.Rama Rao, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3, and the Court made the following ORDER:
{[Heard learned counsel-for the petitioner, learned Government PIeader for Energy for lst respondent and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 & 3.
At the hearing, the learned counsel on either side would submit that a batch of writ appeals and 'writ petitions, are pending and the issue I-nVOIved in those batch matters and the issue inVolvedJin this writ petition, is one and the same.
The learned counsel on either side would submit that an interim order granted in the batch matters, is in operation. Copy of interim order in W.P.Mos.29987 of 2023 and batch, was placed before this Court, Given the fac-ts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity duty collected @.Rs.0.06 paise per unit (KWH), to the licensees, along with arrears, if any.
t>
