M/S. Royal Plastic vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court, as an interim measure, held that the respondents shall not take any coercive steps, including disconnection, for the non-payment of Electricity duty as per G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. This relief is conditional upon the petitioner making payment of the duty at the rate of Rs.0.06 per unit and clearing any pending dues at the same rate. The Court's reasoning is based on the submissions made by the petitioner and the perusal of the record, particularly the orders passed in similar writ petitions by a Co-ordinate Bench. The ratio decidendi for this interim order is that in cases with similar factual matrices and where a Co-ordinate Bench has granted interim relief, the High Court may extend similar relief to maintain parity and prevent undue hardship pending final adjudication. The operative direction is to grant a stay on coercive steps subject to the petitioner fulfilling the stipulated payment conditions. The matter is listed after four weeks for filing a counter-affidavit. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Royal Plastic, has filed a writ petition challenging an action by the respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh and others) concerning the payment of Electricity duty. The petitioner's counsel referred to similar circumstances where a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had passed interim orders in W.P.Nos. 2935 & 4727 of 2023. The petitioner sought a similar interim order in the present writ petition. The specific order or action under challenge is not explicitly detailed, but it relates to the demand for Electricity duty as per G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the current interim order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents should be restrained from taking coercive steps, including disconnection, for non-payment of Electricity duty as per G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 08.04.2022, pending further orders? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed interim orders in W.P.Nos. 2935 & 4727 of 2023, and therefore, a similar interim order should be granted in this writ petition. The petitioner relied on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench. Respondent's Argument: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents at this interim stage.