The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy W.P.Nos.3378, 3380, 3381, 3382, 3383, 3384, 3385, 3386, 3387 & 3400 of 2008 Date: 08-07-2010 Common Order: In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who are involved in manufacture of biscuits in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have questioned the validity of GO.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, whereby the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has evolved a fresh food policy in supersession of GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11- 2003, and GO.Ms.No.55, dated 05-03-2004. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said GO to the extent of restricting the benefit conferred under the earlier two GOs in power tariff to 25% only. The petitioners have raised the plea of promissory estoppel. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered on 03-02-2010 in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of concessional power tariff as provided under G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, has raised two contentions (1) that a more or less similar Writ Petition viz., W.P.No.3506 of 2006 was dismissed by another learned single Judge, vide judgment, dated 24-02-2006, by rejecting the plea of promissory estoppel (2) that the learned single Judge, who rendered judgment, dated 03-02-2010, in WP. Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, has not given a specific finding on the scope of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’), and that therefore, the plea raised by the respondents based on Section 65 of the Act needs to be considered by this Court before granting any relief to the petitioners. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In WP.No.3506 of 2006, the learned Judge, on the facts of that case, held that as the petitioner therein has started the industry much before issuance of GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003, the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were not attracted to that case. The claim of the petitioners in each of these cases is required to be considered on the basis of the factual foundation laid by them before rendering the findings on both these doctrines. In the judgment rendered in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, the learned Judge has placed reliance on certain decided case law and following the earlier judgments, he has held that GO.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, has no retrospective effect and that the incentives extended earlier vide G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003, do not stand cancelled nor have become invalidated. Therefore, in strict sense, there is no conflict between these two sets of judgments. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the learned Judge in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, has not dealt with in detail the effect of the provisions of Section 65 of the Act on the enforceability of GO.Ms.No.333, dated 14- 11-2003. In my prima facie opinion, unless the said issue is conclusively determined, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. As the learned Judge in WP.Nos.15939 of 2005 and 4724 of 2006, has expressed his opinion on the merits of the cases and granted reliefs without specifically considering the effect of Section 65 of the Act, I express my inability to follow the said judgment. However, in my view, judicial propriety requires that these cases are considered and decided by a Division Bench of two learned Judges instead of my taking an independent view. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are referred to a Division Bench. The Registry shall post these Writ Petitions before the appropriate Division Bench after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. ______________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 08-07-2010 lur