ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India by declaring the action of the 1strespondent in issuing G.O.MS.NO.7 Energy (Power- III) Department dt 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 AP in colourable exercise of the powers conferred under Sec 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Duty Act 1939 as revised from time to time, and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in levying Electricity 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 petitioners H.T industry as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable excessive violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under constitution of India violative of Principles of Natural Justice contrary to National Tariff Policy 2016 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 dt.08.4.2022 as well as the aforesaid H.T Electricity Bills issued to petitioners M/s.K.P.R. Rice Mill situated at Komaripalem Village, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.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 petitioners H.T S.C.No.RJY.1086 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 their industry to the 2nd respondent and to pass.......”

2. Heard Sri P. Narashimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Metta Chendrahsekar Rao, learned Standing Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy.

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 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. To the said submissions, Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2 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 subsequent coordinate benches. relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in between Dr. Shah Faesal and others vs. Union of India and another1and 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 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]