Visishta Hospitals vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions involving the same issue was pending. It was also submitted by counsel on both sides that an interim order was in operation in those batch matters. The Court took note of the interim order granted in W.P.Nos.29987 of 2023 and batch. Based on these circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioners shall continue to pay the electricity duty collected at the rate of Rs. 0.06 paise per unit (KWH) to the licensees, along with any arrears. The matter was listed along with W.P.No.13186 of 2025. No specific finding was given on the legality of the G.O. itself, but an interim arrangement was continued.

Facts

The petitioners, various commercial and industrial entities, filed a writ petition challenging the levy of increased electricity duty. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through G.O.Ms.No.7 dated April 8, 2022, increased the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 per unit to Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers. The petitioners contended that this action was illegal and arbitrary, contrary to statutory provisions. They sought a direction to levy electricity duty at the old rate of Rs. 0.06 paise per unit and to adjust any excess amounts paid against future bills. An interlocutory application was also filed seeking to prevent disconnection of power supply for recovery of the enhanced duty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms.No.7, Energy (Power-II) Department dated 08-04-2022, increasing the electricity duty from Rs. 0.06 paise per unit to Rs. 1/- per unit on energy sales to commercial and industrial consumers is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners argued that the increased levy was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions. They sought to continue paying the electricity duty at the rate of Rs. 0.06 paise per unit and to prevent disconnection of power supply for recovery of the enhanced duty. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Energy and Standing Counsel for the power distribution companies, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the case during this hearing. However, they acknowledged that a batch of similar writ appeals and writ petitions were pending, and an interim order was in operation in those matters.