Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 184Person Officiated To Higher Post On Orders Is Entitled To Pay In That Cadre Even If Later Found To Be Ineligible: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana MurthyCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was...
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 184
Case Title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana Murthy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.
A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be given the pay of the cadre he was officiated to, for his period of officiation, irrespective of having the requisite qualifications. The CAT also entitled the respondent to all consequential benefits including pension fixation.
Referring to a series of orders rendered by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Bench held:
“17. So far as the payment of the pay for the officiating post is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the respondent officiated in the post on the orders of the authorities and for the period of officiation, he was entitled for pay in the cadre of HSG-I from the date of his officiating as HSG-I. (Higher Selection Grade)”
Case Title: Bocha Srinu Babu vs. B. Mohan and 3 others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 2
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that date of acquiring requisite qualification would be from the date of declaration of results and not the date on which the provisional certificate was issued.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V Srinivas further held that though a provisional certificate is proof of qualification, its date of issuance cannot be taken as the date of acquisition of the qualification in question.
The court pointed out that Regulation – 33 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (A.P.S.E.B.)Service Regulations, 1968 stipulates a 'last day of examination' rule that was not followed by the GO being relied on by the respondent/Corporation.
“The material aspect; as to whether this memo dated 05.02.1992 clarifies 'last date of examination' as under Regulation-33 or the date of issuance of the provisional certificate is deemed to be the date of obtaining the degree, escaped consideration. This aspect is material for the reason that the degree is issued after some time, and in the absence of degree, to entitle the candidate/employee to show the proof of having acquired the qualification, where the provisional certificate has been obtained, the date of the provisional certificate is deemed to be the date of obtaining the degree. Whether such date of obtaining the provisional certificate has been clarified by memo, to be the 'last date of examination under the Regulation-33', prima facie, we are of the view that it is not so. “
Case Title: Tuf Metallurgical Private Limited Vs. Bst Hk Limited and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 3
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Nayapathy Vijay observed that in deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic principles of the CPC. At the same time, the power of the Court to grant relief is not curtailed by the rigours of every procedural provision in the CPC. In exercise of its powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC.
The issue before the court was 'whether the order of attachment of the learned single Judge calls for interference?
If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.”
Case Title: Smt. Mekala Sudha Prameela Kantha vs. State of AP and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 4
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a plea for suspension of sentence is generally sought without any conditions, and when an accused seeks a blanket order like this, the responsibility is cast on the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi was hearing a cheque bouncing case, wherein the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced to one year imprisonment along with compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which is also the cheque amount. An appeal was filed against the order, and the sessions court suspended the trial court's order on the payment of 20% of the compensation.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd &Ors. the high court said, “The Appellate Court in the impugned order referred to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court but failed to consider the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court that, in general, an accused applies Section 389 CrPC to seek relief of suspension of sentence without any conditions. When an accused seeks a blanket order, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception. However, in the case at hand, the Appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not provide or state any reasons for claiming an exception. The Sessions Judge merely rephrased the earlier order by adopting a pedantic approach, which is incorrect in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, overlooked the fact that when an appellant seeks a blanket order, the Court must consider whether the case falls under an exception.”
Case Title: Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao vs Ethalapaka Vanaja and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 5
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that at the stage of registration of civil suits, the trial court registry must not insist on compliance of objections to a plaint that are not mandated under the Civil Procedure Code or the Civil Rules of Practice
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari said, “It shall ensure, not to insist compliance with such objections, which are not contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Rules of Practice, at the stage of registration of plaint or which the registry in the discharge of its ministerial function has to consider. Even if the objections have the backing of the rules and there is non-compliance, the plaint should not be returned, frequently, to comply with the objections, in spite of re-submission with the reply. Registry, with the objections and note/reply, should place the matter before the Court for consideration and appropriate orders.”
The court also said that maintainability of a suit is always a question which is to be decided by the Court. It said that after registration and placing of the plaint before the Court for consideration, such question of maintainability can be considered and answered.
'Strength' Or 'Weakness' Of Case Cannot Justify Delay In Filing Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Mani Venkata Constructions and Others v. Chakka Rama Krishna and Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a condonation of delay application, observed that the strength or weakness of a case cannot justify the delay if the appellant has failed to demonstrate diligence in filing the appeal.
Essentially, the respondent had filed a suit against the present appellants for recovery of money. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the appellants filed the present appeal along with an application to condone the delay of 880 days in filing the same.
“Though the counsel for the petitioners/appellants sought to impress upon that they have substantial grounds to succeed in the appeal and, therefore, their right of appeal may not be stifled on technical grounds of delay in filing the appeal, we are afraid, the strength or weakness of the appellants in the appeal itself cannot be a ground to condone the delay, when the appellants failed to show their diligence in filing the appeal on time. The strength of arguable grounds in the appeal may be considered as an additional factor that is not the case here.,” held Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Sumathi Jagadam.
Case Title: Sterling And Wilson Private Limited v. The Joint Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 7
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the supply of solar generating power station is a composite supply and it would not amount to a works contract. Also, it is a moveable property and attracted 5% GST.
The Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed that “a 'works contract' is also a composite supply. However, there could be a 'composite supply', which does not fall within the ambit of 'works contract'….. The distinction between 'works contract' and a 'composite supply' would be whether the end product handed over to the contractee, is moveable or immoveable property.”
Case Title: Angela Srinivasulu vs. Union of India and Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 8
Denying permission to screen more than five shows in a day for Ram Charan starrer 'Game Changer' and Nandamuri Balakrishna starrer 'Daaku Maharaj', the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the state government's memo granting this permission did not reflect the additional material based on which decision was taken.
The court also said that the higher tickets rates for the two movies can be charged only for a period of 10 days. It also underscored that if any show is held at late/early hours then it should not exceed the 5-show-a-day limit with the State ensuring "proper police arrangements" for such shows.
"Needless to say that it at all any show is held during late or early hours, it should not in any case be more than five in a day and it would be the responsibility of the State to ensure proper police arrangements for such shows," the court said.
Case Title: The Divisional Railway Manager and another vs. Kattem Prashanth Kumari and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 9
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that Rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 does not bar a Hindu second wife from claiming pension benefits, more so when the second marriage was performed after demise of the first wife.
"A reading of the above rule, does not show that the 2nd wife is not entitled for the family pension. Rule 75(6) (i) specifically mentions “in the case of a widow or a widower, up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier”. The 1st respondent herein being the 2nd wife, it cannot be said that she is not the widow and is not covered under Rule 75 (6)(i) of the Pension Rules,1993. The 1st respondent being the widow, is also entitled under the Pension Rules," a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed.
Case Title: Boddu Prasad Rao v. Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that an aggrieved individual can appeal against 'any order' passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal as per section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and that civil revisional petitions should not be entertained for the same.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan further clarified, that since an alternative and equally effective remedy was already provided for, the High Court should refrain from entertaining Civil Revision Petitions arising out of an interlocutory order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
"The Act,1993, thus provides that an order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. The order of the present nature is also covered under the expression 'any order'. It is not confined to order granting or refusing stay. A bare reading of Section 20 of the Act shows that any person aggrieved by an order made or deemed to have been made by a Tribunal under the Act may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. The Right of appeal is against an 'order made' or 'deemed to have been made'. The order rejecting the application for condonation of delay or/and the application for setting aside the exparte order, is an order within the meaning of this expression under Section 20. The only restriction on the right of appeal is under sub section (2) of Section 20."
Case Title: M/s. Mohan Spintex India Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 11
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has placed a matter regarding the interpretation of Rule 12(10) of the Central Sale Tax (R&T) Rules before the Chief Justice for reference to a Full Bench.
The question that arose before the coordinate bench was whether akin to Form C (Form of Declaration) and F (Form of declaration to be issued by the transferee); Form H (Certificate of Export that relieves from payment of VAT/CST) can also be filed after the sales tax assessment proceedings have been completed.
The division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam referred to earlier judgments passed by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the unanimous ratio was that time limit prescribed for filing form 'C&F' should be applicable to form H as well.
The Co-ordinate bench however observed, Rules 12(7) that deals with Form 'C&F' and provides for a lenient approach, in as much as giving liberty to the authority to furnish the form beyond the prescribed time, if a sufficient cause is shown. Rule (10)(b) on the other hand, does not provide for any such leniency.
“However, a closer look at Rule 12(10)(b) shows that the said view may not be correct. Rule 12(10)(b) states that if any rules are made by the respective State Governments, relating to the filing of Form 'H', then the rules as they applied to the declaration in Form 'C', prescribed under the CST (R&T) Rules, would mutatis mutandia apply to filing of a certificate in Form 'H'.”
Case Title: T. Venkateswarlu and Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 12
A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that seniority for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector is determined by the date of promotion to the feeder category (Head Constable/ASI), not from the date of initial appointment as a Police Constable.
It was observed by the court that Rule 15 (a) of the APPSS Rules state that the seniority of a person in the class shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class. Therefore petitioners' contention that they were appointed as Police Constables in 1989 and hence, their seniority must be calculated from 1989 in the class, has no merit.
It was further observed by the court that the Head Constable/ASI is the feeder category to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The words “first appointment to such class or category or grade” meant employees working in that category are eligible to be promoted to the post of next category.
Case Title: M/s.Brothers Engineering and Erectors Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zorin Infrastructure, LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 13
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of an application filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that once an amount has been mutually decided by the parties, the dispute itself is resolved and no arbitrable issue remains for consideration.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V. Srinivas pointed out that non-payment of part amount of the mutually agreed amount cannot be said to give rise to an arbitrable dispute. When an arbitration clause stipulates that 'any dispute' is arbitrable, it should be understood in line with section 8 of the Act, to mean 'any dispute' arising out of a contractual agreement. Relying on M/s. Agri Gold Exims Ltd the Court held:
“….once it was mutually agreed that a particular amount would be given to the plaintiff and out of the said amount, Rs.30 lakhs was paid and the remaining amount of Rs.40 lakh and odd could not be paid for the reason as disclosed by the defendants in the written arguments and their reply to the notice of the plaintiff, there would be no dispute so as to be covered under the expression 'any dispute' under Clause 17 of the arbitration agreement. It has not been argued before us that with respect to the mutually agreed amount, also that in case of any dispute, the same arbitration clause in the arbitration agreement would get attracted nor that the plaintiff's notice, the reply contained any arbitration clause, with respect to any dispute for the mutually agreed amount as well. In our view, the subject matter of the suit is not a dispute so as to be covered under the agreement for being referred to the arbitration.
Case Title: M/s. The Cotton Corporation Of India v. Assistant Commissioner St Auditfac and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 14
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the time permit set out under 73(2) of the AP GST Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature.
A division bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. added that any violation of that time period cannot be condoned and would render the show cause notice otiose.
It observed, “The GST Act, has put in place certain protections for tax payers. One of the primary protections is that orders cannot be passed against the tax payers, beyond the periods stipulated in the Act. It is settled law that these periods of limitation are mandatory and not orders can be passed beyond the periods set out in the Act. In such a situation, it would be difficult to hold that the stipulation as to the period of initiation, of such proceedings, by issuance of a show cause notice, would only be directory and not mandatory.”
Case Title: Atmakuru Nirmalamma vs. State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 15
Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 which stipulates that an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits should be filed with 2 months. The Court concluded the above on the basis of a two prong reasoning. Firstly, the court noted, that other sections of the Chits Funds Act, had specifically called for the inclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act, however, no such provision found place in section 70.
"Under Section 65, with respect to the disputes, there is provision for the period of limitation and for condonation of delay. Under sub-section (1) and (2), the power has been given to the Registrar to condone the delay on being satisfied on sufficient cause. But, any specific power has not been conferred to the appellate authority under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act or any other provision to condone the delay in filing appeal. Consequently, the exclusion of power of condonation of delay, with respect to the appeals under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, is implied. If no provision of the Limitation Act was expressly adopted, it might have been possible to hold by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, subject to fulfillment of its conditions, that the power of condonation of delay in filing appeal was available to the appellate authority. The legislative intent is very clear from the Chit Funds Act, that where the legislature intended to apply provision of the Limitation Act, i.e., the disputes under Section 65 of Chit Funds Act, it applied, and where it did not, as under Section 70, it did not provide for that."
Case Title: X vs. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that reconciliation proceedings between a married couple before the Family Court are to be conducted in the personal presence of both parties and video conferencing in such a case is impermissible.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held:
"I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Santhini: (i) for the purposes of reconciliation in matrimonial matters before the Family Courts video conferencing is not permissible, and (ii) it is only after the efforts of reconciliation and settlement fails, the videoconferencing can be resorted on the joint application filed by the parties or the memorandum of consent by both the parties, husband and wife, for such videoconferencing, in the discretion of the Court, if the Court considers it appropriate."
Case Title: Chakkas Enterprises vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that pleadings relating to suppression of material facts, in an assessment order are the sine qua non for invoking section 21(5); by way of which limitation for filing an assessment order is extended to 6 years from 4 years.
"There is nowhere any mention of suppression of facts, much less, wilful suppression of facts, resulting in wilful evasion of tax, which is the sine qua non, for invoking Section 21(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act would not be applicable and the period of limitation would be four years, as set out under Section 21(4) of the Act," held Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath N.
Case Title: Tirumala Balaji Marbles And Granites v. The Assistant Commissioner St and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that GST registration can't be refused merely because the assessee belongs to another State.
“Though the apprehension of the respondents may not be misplaced, it would not mean that registration can be refused on a ground, which is not available under the Statute or the Rules. There do not appear to be any restriction for persons outside the State to come into the State of Andhra Pradesh and seek registration under the APGST Act,” stated the Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N.
Delay Of Two Days In Issuing GST Notice Can't Be Condoned: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 19
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that delay of two days in issuing the GST notice cannot be condoned.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that “the time permit set out under 73(2) of the Act is mandatory and any violation of that time period cannot be condoned, and would render the show cause notice otiose.”
In this case, the assessee/petitioner received a show cause notice, dated 30.11.2024, in relation to the assessment year 2020-2021 which was delayed by two days. The cutoff date for issuing an order was 28.02.2025. The three months period which would elapse from this date would be 28.11.2024.
Case Title: Alliance Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh State Fiber Net Limited (APSFL)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 20
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only after a notice invoking arbitration has been issued by one of the parties and there has been either a failure or refusal on the part of the opposite party to make an appointment as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties.
Case Title: M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities and another Vs. M/s. Manasa Estates and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 21
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur held that the request for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator other than the named arbitrator cannot be entertained if there is no evidence to show that the named arbitrator would act in a partial or biased manner.
Case Title: M/s Diwakar Road Lines vs. The Union Of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 22
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Diwakar Road Lines challenging the rejection of an application to compound all previous service tax by way of a one-time settlement.
The bench held that even though the statute does not prescribe for the rejection of any application, the committee may reject an application when the documents relied upon are ingenuine.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath. N while passing the order, differentiated from an order passed by the Karnataka High Court, holding that not permitting rejection of application when the documents themselves are ingenue would result in an 'extreme situation.'
“In the present case, the Designated Committee hadset out the reasons for rejection as filing of bogus certificates and notices. This Court is of the opinion that, where applications had been filed by producing documents which are not genuine, the same can be rejected by the Designated Committee. Any other view, would mean that a person claiming the benefit of the scheme can come forward with any kind of document and the Designated Committee is precluded from going into the question of whether the said document is genuine or not. Such a view, would result in extreme situations.”
Case Title: Revuru Venkata Asritha vs. State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed YSR University of Health and Science to pay Rs. 7 Lakhs as "damages" to a medical aspirant who lost an MBBS seat "and a chance to pursue a career in medicine" due to the University's action which did not allot her seat that she was entitled to as per merit.
It also imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on the University as costs in addition to the damages amount.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao in its order said, “Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the respondent-University, to the petitioner, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. We are informed that the petitioner has since joined in a Dental Course. The petitioner has lost the chance to pursue a career in the Medicine on account of the actions of the respondent-University. Though she would be entitled to a seat in Medicine for the course commencing in 2022, it would not be possible to accommodate her as more than two academic years have already passed. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to compensate her for her loss by award of damages of Rs.7 lakhs.”
Disciplinary Orders Attain Finality Upon Communication, Can't Be Unilaterally Modified: AP HC
Case Title: B. Asheervadam v. UCO Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 24
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N set aside UCO Bank's unilateral revision of disciplinary punishment against a former Assistant Manager. The court held that the bank's act of enhancing punishment without issuing notice or seeking response from the affected employee was illegal and manifestly arbitrary. The court clarified that disciplinary authorities cannot arbitrarily modify penalty orders and impose harsher punishments. Further, it held that compulsory retirement automatically entitles an employee to service benefits.
Case Title: Pvhv Gopala Sarma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 25
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that in a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer (IO) deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao further observed that,
“The investigating officer, who has been prevented from subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful in finding prima facie substance in the grave allegations. The possibility of the investigation being effected once the petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.”
Case Title: Botta Lakshmi Pavani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an order suspending license can “never partake the character of an order of cancellation” and in the absence of an order of suspension prescribing a definite time period, the same, would make it unsustainable in law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati further explained that suspension and cancellation are conceptually distinct as “suspension entails temporary debarment, whereas cancellation means to destroy the force, effectiveness, or validity of an order.”
Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus CHAVVA RATHNAMMA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the reliability of a private investigator's report in comparison to the official record of police investigation is examined, “presumption as to genuineness will weigh more in favour of the police investigation report.”
Single Judge Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma was dealing with a case involving an appeal preferred by an insurance company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, “MACT”) regarding a road accident, where the insurance company undertook and relied on its own private investigation. Questioning the authenticity of the report of the investigator appointed by the insurance company, the Court observed,
“The private investigation got done by the Insurance Company through its own either employee or paid agency does not overweigh the authenticity attached to the record placed by the investigating agency, that too when spoken by a competent witness like P.W-2. Therefore, the objection of the insurance company is ignored…”
Case Title: Pitta Samadana Swarooparani v. Pitta Kumari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 28
A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has ruled that in a partition suit, a plaintiff may not always be aware of all the ancestral properties to be partitioned. If he later discovers additional properties which need to be partitioned or included in the partition suit during the pendency of the case, he should be allowed to amend the suit to include them.
The Court directed that amendments to add such properties cannot be refused on a mere technical plea.
Case Title: S V K Kumar vs. State of AP & Batch.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has confirmed that in the absence of any Rules governing the transfer of Employees, an executive order/ Government order issued under Article 162 of the Indian Constitution, which lays down guidelines relating to transfer, shall have statutory force.
“The administrative authority while exercising jurisdiction and effect transfers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, shall adhere to the guidelines/instructions prescribed therein. In fact, the authority is bound by the regulations. Of course, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot substitute its opinion. It is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the lawfulness of the executive decisions. One should not be oblivious that the executive instructions or administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer any indefeasible right to claim transfer or posting in favour of an employee. At the same time, the employer shall be bound by the guidelines/instructions. The failure of the employer to adhere to the guidelines, which prescribe the procedure, in the opinion of this Court, amounts to arbitrariness and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR v. JYOTHI PERAIAH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 30
A Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, while dealing with an appeal contesting the sustainability of an award and decree passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, laid down certain advisory parameters to be followed in Motor Vehicle Accident claims cases while disputing negligence. The Court directed that in such cases-
- “There must be denial.
- There must be some evidence at least by the parties.
- There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination.
- Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb role, if the presence of such witnesses examined is probable at the scene of offence, at relevant time.
- The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have its own importance, at least in cases of contributory negligence.
- In cases of serious disputes as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities will have considerable impact.
- The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc., will have its own effect to vindicate the stand of the parties.
- However, no stick jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before this Court.
- Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.“
Case Title: Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 31
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the provisions of Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are mandatory and peremptory, and a violation of this provision can only result in a declaration that the arrest and subsequent detention are invalid.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice R Raghunandan and Justice K Manmadha Rao, was dealing with a writ petition filed by Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy, challenging the detention of her husband, who was arrested by the 4th and 5th respondents. He was produced before the Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, at 5:45 PM on February 25, 2025. The Magistrate noted that the remand report indicated that intimation of arrest was not given to the accused and that the remand report did not include all the sections mentioned in the alteration memo.
“Non-intimation, required under Section 47(1) of BNSS, would render any further detention of the person illegal. The word 'forthwith' makes it amply clear that intimation under Section 47(1) of BNSS has to be served at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.”
Case Title: BAGADI SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 32
Justice Subba Reddy Satti of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Look-Out Circular (LOC) is a coercive measure that certainly has adverse civil consequences inasmuch as it makes “a person surrender and consequentially interferes with his right to personal liberty and free movement.”
The Court further held that the issuing authority should apply its mind to the facts of each case before issuing an LOC.
Case Title: Karthikeyan @ P S Karthik v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 33
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a sexual harassment case has observed that denying custodial interrogation can result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation that may adversely affect its integrity.
Single judge Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao also observed,
“The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that Petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations.”
Case Title: Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 34
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.
The Court further noted that while the government recognises a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in-law, despite not being traditionally classified as family, should also be extended the same benefit.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:
“After a daughter gets married, she becomes an integral part of the family she joins. Conversely, the daughter-in-law, who enters the family, becomes a vital member and has a more substantial right to request compassionate appointments to ensure the welfare of her children.”
Case Title: Vemagiri Raju @ Yesu, E.g.dt. v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 35
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that if an accused person is identified by the prosecution witnesses before the Court, no separate identification parade is required.
Justice V. Srinivas made the observation while partly allowing a man's Criminal Revision plea challenging his conviction for causing death by negligence (under Section 304-A IPC) and one year sentence along with fine. In doing so the court modified the sentence imposed to six months instead of one year.
Referring to various Supreme Court pronouncements on this issue, the high court said:
"The said contention has no legs to stand in view of the categorical observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dana Yadav (referred to supra) by referring its earlier pronouncements in Dharamvir v. State of M.P., Mehtab Singh v. State of M.P. and Sajjan Singh v. Emperor that “if an accused person is already well known to the witnesses, an identification parade would, of course, be only a waste of time.”
Case Title: Kote Krishnudu v. Mandleam Subba Reddy and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 36
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that there is no provision controlling the order of examination of same class of parties though the usual practice is to examine those on the same side first.
The court further added that just because a witness gives evidence not only for themselves but also for others, the same cannot be a ground to reject their evidence.
In doing so the court rejected the petitioner's (plaintiff) contention that defendant no. 1's affidavit must be dismissed with as he cannot give evidence on his behalf and on behalf of defendant no. 3 (who are respondents before high court).
Case Title: Katikala Indira Priyadarsini and Others v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 37
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the constitutionality of a 1999 Government Order that gave priority in promotions to candidates whose spouses were working in the Government.
The court was hearing a plea moved by doctors working in medical colleges across the state who challenged the government order claiming that giving priority to the spouses working in the Government for selecting the place is irrational and arbitrary and, hence must be struck down.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the scheme of giving preference in promotions to those candidates whose spouses work in the Government is a policy decision that is neither irrational nor in defiance of logic.
"A conspectus of the expressions of the Apex Court discerns that if the decision or clause is to be declared as irrational it should be outrageous and illogical. However, in the case at hand, this Court doesn't find any such illogical or outrageous in giving preference to an employee in choosing a place on spouse ground".
Case Title: Machilipatnam Bar Association and others Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 38
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a Government Order that envisaged shifting of the Court of VI Additional District Sessions Court, Machilipatnam to Avanigadda.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, while noting the distance between Avanigadda and Machilipatnam being roughly 35 kms, held,
“Litigants from the Avanigadda area would be relieved from having to traverse that distance to file their cases on each and every date of hearing. The justice dispensation system exists for the benefit of litigants, whose convenience and concerns weigh with the higher judiciary in taking decisions, including the decision regarding the shifting of the Court. While it is true that advocates affiliated with the Bar Association in Machilipatnam would now have to travel to Avanigadda, when considering the balance of convenience, we believe the convenience of the litigants would weigh more than that of the advocates.”
Case Title: M/s. Sri Chakra Cements Ltd., v. The Employees Provident Funds and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 39
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that employees engaged by security agencies for the purposes of loading and unloading, office or factory maintenance and Pay Loader work are covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and are entitled to the Provident Fund.
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held that the employees mentioned above cannot be equated with those persons who are “employed for a short period on account of some passing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company” and are, thus, entitled to the benefits of the EPF Act.
Case Title: Medarametla Venkata Sesha Reddy v. The State Of A.P and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 40
In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has highlighted the pressing need for the creation of a dispute register which records disputes between parties over land. The purpose of maintaining such a register would be to protect innocent third parties from being dragged into litigation emanating from the purchase of such disputed land or from accepting such property as security for any loans that may be advanced.
Highlighting the utility of such a register, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam further observed,
“It would be appropriate, if the government were to consider this pressing need and establish a statutory basis for the creation of a dispute register with rules set out for inclusion of dispute register with rules set out for inclusion and removal of properties from such a dispute register. We may also observe that such dispute register may be used as a reference point for verification of title and for verification if there is a cloud over the title of the person claiming ownership over the land. It may not be appropriate to insist that properties entered in the dispute register cannot be alienated. Any such stipulation, may result in power being granted to revenue authorities to decide title of the claimants.”
Case Title: Federation of Minor Minerals Industry (femm) and Others v. The State of AP and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 41
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 20.03.2025, set aside a bunch of petitions challenging the amendments made to the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (“the 1966 Rules”). These amendments sought to fundamentally alter the manner of granting minor mineral leases by shifting from a first-come-first-serve system to an auction-based system.
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, clarified that the amendments were prospective in nature and the State Government possessed the requisite authority to alter the system of granting minor mineral leases in such a manner.
The Court held, “The 1957 Act, did not provide for any particular method or system for granting mineral concessions for minor minerals. The method of granting mineral concessions for minor minerals, on a first-cum-first serve basis was not stipulated under the provisions of the 1957 Act. This system was brought into effect under the 1966 Rules. Once, it has been accepted that the State Government, by way of Rules, made under Section 15 of 1957 Act, could establish a system of first-cum-first serve basis, for grant of leases and a system of priority among the four categories mentioned above, it cannot be said that the State does not have any further power to change a system which was brought in, by way of the very same rules.”
The Court also held that a conflict between the Central Rules (Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, and Marble Development and Conservation Rules, 2002) and the 1966 Rules (issued by the State Government) would arise only when both the Rules are not able to operate together. The Central Rules primarily dealt with the manner in which the mining or excavation activity was to be carried out and subsequently left the regulation of grant of leases for these minerals to the Rules formulated under section 15 of the 1957 Act. Hence, the Court failed to highlight any apparent conflict between the Central Rules and the 1966 Rules. “In the absence of such a conflict, the 1966 rules would continue to operate, even in relation to regulation of grant of mineral concessions for granite and marble.”
Case Title: Pulavarthi Daniyelu, W.g.district v. Kollam Sudhakara Babu Prakasam District
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 42
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a driver is considered an agent of the owner who is responsible for the actions of the driver and holding the owner vicariously liable for the accidents caused by the driver serves public policy purposes.
A Single Judge Bench of the High Court comprising Justice VRK Krupa Sagar, further asserted,
“No owner ever granted any permission to any driver to drive the vehicle negligently or rashly and cause an accident. Therefore, no accident is ever authorized by any owner. Could it be said that when a driver acted negligently in discharging his function, it amounted breach of contract between the driver and the owner thereby absolving the owner from any liability especially when the accident cause death or physical impairment or injuries to the third party. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fastens liability on the owner though owner never drove the vehicle by himself.”
Case Title: Lakshmi Agencies v. Aryapuram Coop Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 43
The division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has observed that when proceedings are held before the Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, such proceedings cannot be termed as arbitral proceedings.
Accordingly, it was held that no provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including Section 34 would be applicable to them. The appropriate remedy in such a case would be an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964.
Case Title: M/s. Real Fab India Pvt.Ltd. Versus M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 44
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
It also held that if valid grounds existed for setting aside the award, its execution cannot be allowed merely due to the submission of a signed copy thereafter.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, Anantapur District v. B Gangamma, Anantapur District
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 45
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Hamali cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger and comes within the ambit of 'third party' under Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Nyapathy Vijay, explaining the scope of Section 145(i), observed,
“The Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended vide the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 elaborating the term 'third party'. As per the amended definition, 'third party' includes any co-worker on transport vehicle other than the owner and the driver.
Case Title: Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy v. High Court Of Judicature Registrar vigilance Hyd 2 and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 46
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not grant a right to the employee to claim reinstatement however if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are similar and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.
A division bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice K. Manmadha Rao in its order said:
"we are of the opinion that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. Further, the Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.”
Case Title: Gajulapalli Vasundhara, Kadapa Dist. v. P Sreenivasulu Kadapa Dist Ano and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 47
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent case, applied the principle of pay and recover and held that an insurance company is entitled to file an execution petition against the owner of an offending vehicle only after paying the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal to the claimant.
Justice VRK Krupa Sagar in his order held,
“On the issue of liability to pay the compensation by the insurer, if there was fundamental breach of insurance policy, the insurance company could be absolved of the liability. However, in those cases where the third party claimant suffered serious injuries and acquired permanent disability such as the one available in the case at hand, the consistent view taken by the Constitutional Courts is to apply the principle of pay and recover. In such view of the principles of law it is difficult to approve the impugned award to the extent that it absolved the insurance company totally. In the given facts and circumstances of this case this Court records that respondent No.2-Insurance Company need not shoulder the liability and indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. However, this is a fit case to apply the principle of pay and recover. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal has to be first paid by the insurance company and thereafter the insurance company is entitled to file execution petition against the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 for recovering the same.”
Case Title: The United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Karu Nukalamma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 48
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a daughter, whether married or unmarried, is a legal heir and therefore, a married daughter is entitled to stake a claim for compensation on the death of her father on account of a motor vehicle accident.
A Single Judge Bench of the High Court comprising Justice VRK Krupa Sagar however clarified,
“...eligibility to claim is one thing and as to how much is to be granted towards loss of dependency is another aspect. Every heir may not be dependent. Non-heirs may also be dependent. Simply because a daughter is married does not completely cease to be dependent. To what extent she is dependent on her father is a matter of fact and it is that fact which is required to be pleaded and proved and considered in such claims.”
Case Title: Mandi Rojashri v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 49
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that the intention behind insistence on No-objection certificate (NOC) which an applicant is to seek from the district authority under Rules 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 is to ensure that the site is safe for storing petrol and protect public interest.
In doing so the court said that it is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the authority to enquire into any title dispute between the lessor and lessee of the concerned land specially when the lease deed is a registered document. The court was hearing a plea moved by a lessee, challenging denial of NOC by District Collector Aruku Valley, in order to sub-lease the land for setting up a petrol pump.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti in his order said,
“Thus, the power under the Rules, as illustrated in Rule 144 and Proforma, clearly indicates that the insistence of NOC from the District Authority is to protect public interest and public safety. The location of the site plays a vital role for establishment of petrol tank qua safety and in that connection, the District Administration shall consider issuance of No objection. The dispute, if any, between the lessor and lessee is beyond the scope of the enquiry and that can be subject to separate challenge in appropriate proceedings. The District Authority must confine its scope of enquiry with the parameters referred to, under the Rule and proforma. Any enquiry beyond its power would amount to abdication of duty vested under the statutory provisions.”
Case Title: Kamma Aravind Kishore @ Kamma Aravind v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 50
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that confessional statements made by the accused during interrogation can be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused and such a disclosure statement can be taken into consideration to provide a lead in the investigation.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao further held that such a statement is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 30 provides for consideration of proved confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offence. It states,
“When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”
Case Title: Vaitla Rama Murthy and Others v. Marisetty Satyanarayana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 51
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the purpose of issuing urgent notice under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, even if the court does not grant a temporary injunction, is to address situations requiring immediate action and in such cases the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date defeats the purpose of the provision.
Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that such situations arise in cases of imminent danger, threats to safety, potential financial loss or risk of violation of legal rights and issuing urgent notice in such situations ensures that the legal system can respond and intervene strictly in situations which can cause irreparable harm. Such interference is crucial for “safeguarding rights of the individual who are facing immediate threats or potential harm and further enable legal system to respond to ensure the justice is served in a timely manner…”
The Court also held:
“The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertakes to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week.”
Case Title: Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 52
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the offence of rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault, and adopting a liberal approach while granting bail in such cases goes against the interest of the society.
In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, observed,
“The offence of rape is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. Gang rape carries twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature. In fact, rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected, there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently…”
Case Title: V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 53
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed orders passed by the concerned Depot Manager deducting amounts from the salaries of the drivers and conductors working in the concerned depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
In doing so the court observed that the corporation had not followed the procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967. It further underscored that the doctrine of prejudice does not replace of principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part of the same and the projection of an argument of prejudice would not by itself be a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in his order said:
"Admittedly, the petitioners are employees working in the respondents' Corporation. The employees in the respondents' Corporation service conditions are under the Regulations, 1967...A plain reading of the Regulations, 1967 clearly stipulates that the 1st respondent Corporation is duty bound to issue prior notice and to give an opportunity to the concerned and then only, empowered to impose the penalties against the employees. Whereas, in the instant case, apparently, the 1st respondent – Corporation has not pleaded in its counter that they followed the above stated procedures prescribed in the Regulations, 1967 before deducting amounts from the salaries of the petitioners. In the absence of procedural pre-requisites, straight away recovering the amounts from the salaries of the petitioners is unknown to law".
Case Title: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 54
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation plea challenging the increase in ticket prices of Telugu film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'–starring Venkatesh, Aishwarya Rajesh and Meenakshi Chaudhary–and which further sought an investigation into the film's production cost valued at over Rs. 100 crores.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:
"Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is no point in dealing with the aspect of enhancing the ticket prices for the film named “Sankranthiki Vastunam”, as the scheduled shows have already been telecast, this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed."
Case Title: A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 55
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the Court possesses very limited scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers made on account of administrative exigencies.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, while dismissing a writ petition challenging proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (Respondent 2), whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala, further held,
“The petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place. It is for the employer, having regard to the administrative contingencies, to decide on transfers, and such a decision, in the absence of any arbitrary and malafide attributions being made or established, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an Investigating Officer (IO), who is tasked with investigating matters involving public funds, should ensure that investigation details are not disclosed unless such disclosure is necessary for an investigation or for public interest at large.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao held, “This court views that while the investigation agency claims to be investigating an allegedly major liquor scam involving thousands of crores of rupees, keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns. It isn't easy to reconcile how such sensitive particulars of information could be made public at this initial stage of the investigation. The premature disclosure could significantly hinder the progress of the investigation, as it may alert those involved in the scam, allowing them to cover their tracks or alter their actions in response to the information."
Case Title: Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the legislative intent behind enacting Section 216 of CrPC is only to ensure that the Court retains the exclusive power to alter or add a charge depending upon the evidence placed before it and subsequently ensure that the accused is notified of the same.
Justice Harinath N explained that Section 216 does not give scope to either the prosecution or the accused to seek alteration or addition of a charge by filing an application before the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 216 of CrPC. In this regard, it further held,
“If the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is to be invoked by the Court thus there is no scope for filing a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., either by the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. If Section 216 Cr.P.C., is invoked by the prosecution or the accused there cannot be an end for any trial before any Court. If the parties to a litigation are allowed to invoke Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the very purpose of incorporating Section 216 Cr.P.C., in the Code would be defeated. If the parties misuse it, it would delay the conclusion of the trial, and the same would be beyond the scope of the Court to conclude any trial in any case.”
Case Title: JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA v. THE STATE OF AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a writ petition for grant of additional compensatory time to a second year MBBS student suffering from cerebral palsy, during her examinations sought on account of her disability.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, while granting a total of 4.5 hours instead of 3 hours to the petitioner to complete all the examinations concerning the MBBS course until she finishes the course, held,
“The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the differences for the Writ Petitioner to succeed in the first year MBBS examinations. Although, it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time. Having regard to the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the socially beneficial laws governing the differently abled persons, this Court does not find any reason to reject the request made by the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner was able to utilise the extra time that was given by this Court on the earlier occasion and pass the 1st year MBBS Examinations.”
Justice Prasad was of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act.
Case Title: Rathi Vasudeva Rao vs. PVRM Patnaik
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 59
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an award passed by the Lok Adalat concerning a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is executable by a Civil court.
For context, Section 138 NI Act pertains to dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in K.N Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D.Shaji and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act Justice Subba Reddy Satti in his order held:
"Thus, given the authoritative pronouncements, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the execution petition filed by the decree-holder is not maintainable, lacks merit. This Court holds that the Execution Petition filed by the Decree holder, in pursuance of the award of the Lok Adalat, referred to supra, is maintainable."
Case Title: Regional Director ESI vs M/s Ramakrishna Rice Mill
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 60
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that Authorities under section 1(6) of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948; cannot levy a 'contribution' on establishments employing less than 10 individuals at all given times.
Section 1(6) States that a factory shall continue to be governed by the above-mentioned Act, even if the number of employees falls below the specified limit.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan noted that section 1(4) of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act would strictly be applicable only to 'factories.' Similarly, section 1(6) also is taken with regard to a 'factory'.
Factory', the Bench went on to explain, was defined as any precinct which employed at least 10 members on that date or in the previous 12 months as per section 2(12) of the Act, amongst other things.
"May Adversely Affect Investigation": Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused In ₹28 Cr Bank Fraud Case
Case Title: Chimakurthi Naga Venkata Sai Kiran v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 61
The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man allegedly involved in a case where employees of a Bank are accused of "orchestrating money transfer fraud" of approximately Rs 28.34 crores using various schemes targeting existing and new customers.
The petitioner was booked as accused no. 20 in the case by the police. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, in his order, held:
“The Power under section 438 of Cr.P.C., is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. The Power of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. To some extent, the grant of anticipatory bail interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and the Court must be circumspect while exercising such Power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory at the investigation stage may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting helpful information and the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order when he is interrogated.”
Case Title: Shanmukha Kanaka Priya Chinta v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 62
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate belonging to the open category who sought admission in an MBBS college through sports quota.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held so after noting that the A.P. Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules which were amended in July 2007 "make it clear that the reservation granted under sports quota, would be a horizontal reservation under which, the seats available under sports quota would have to be distributed among all the social communities".
"This amendment was challenged before the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Srividya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.A division of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the challenge to this amendment, in terms of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, had upheld the amendment. The division bench, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, had also held that there was a necessity to treat the special reservations, mentioned above, as horizontal reservations. In those circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that distribution of sports quota seats among various social groups is not permissible, has to be rejected," the bench said in its order.
Case Title: S. Swapna v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 63
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean that the prisoner shall be incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life and Section 57 of IPC and Rule 320(a) of A.P Prison Rules, 1979 (“the Rules”) do not reduce the sentence of life imprisonment of a convict nor create a right to be released before the end of the natural life of the prisoner.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while disposing of a writ petition seeking release of a prisoner who was initially awarded death sentence and was later commuted to imprisonment for life, and had served a sentence for 30 years, held,
“It is contended that for the purposes of calculating remission and premature release, the period of sentence of life is 20 years and the prisoner has already served more than that period and would automatically be entitled to such release. This contention has to be rejected on three grounds. Firstly, the rules framed above do not reduce the term of a sentence of imprisonment for life and cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. Secondly, it is only when remission is given under section 432 of Cr.P.C., that the question of premature release can be taken up. Thirdly, Rule 320, even if it were applicable, does not provide for an automatic release, the rule only requires the advisory board to consider the request of the prisoner to give him premature release.”
Case Title: X v. Y and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 64
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted conditional visitation rights to a father, despite his minor son being a witness against him in a case where he was accused of murder of the child's mother.
Noting the father's acquittal in the criminal trial, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held it appropriate to grant conditional visitation rights which will enable the father to get an “opportunity to win over the love and affection of the child, by his acts, conduct behaviour and sharings.” It held:
“The misunderstandings or wrong impressions, may be for any reason, tutoring, living separately for long or otherwise, may get removed. The visitation rights can be allowed with restrictions and imposing conditions in the hope that, with the passage of time the bond between the father and son, may develop. We are of the view that after acquittal the father, ordinarily, should not be deprived of the love and affection of the child or of his company, restricted and supervised…”
Case Title: K Suresh Babu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Other
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 65
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely because the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is not followed, it cannot be said that the State Government possesses no power to issue notice under Section 679-B of the Act.
Section 23-D of the Act refers to disqualifications of Members and Mayor of the Municipal Corporation whereby the Commissioner gives an intimation to the Member or Mayor upon receiving an allegation that he is not qualified or has become disqualified. Section 679-B pertains to the government's power to remove the Mayor or Deputy Mayor who wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act by giving him an opportunity for explanation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay, further explained that,
“The power under Section 679-B is available to the Government to remove a Member for the grounds mentioned therein, while Section 23-D of the Act applies when the Commissioner has given intimation to the Member of the disqualification and when the Member disputes the same, both these provisions apply in independent spheres. Therefore, the contention of lack of jurisdiction may not arise in this case.”
Case Title: P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 66
Disposing of a plea by YSR Congress MP P.V. Midhun Reddy for recording his statement in an investigation through audio-video means in his advocate's presence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that recording of statement through such means is not mandatory and the discretion rests with the police officer.
The court however permitted the MP to be accompanied by two advocates to the office Vijayawada's Police Commissioner; however, at any given point of time, only one counsel shall be permitted to remain present alongside the petitioner. The presence of the counsel accompanying the petitioner shall be subject to the condition that the "counsel remains at a distance of 10 feet from the place of recording of statement; however, the entire examination shall be conducted within the line of sight of the advocate", the court said. It also said that the advocate accompanying the petitioner shall not interfere with the process of recording the petitioner's statement.
Case Title: Shirdi Saibaba Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner St and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 67
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of Shirdi Saibaba Constructions which was ordered to pay Rs.50,14,541/- as tax penalty, on the grounds that the assessment order was passed beyond the period of limitation.
In this regard, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice K. Manmadha Rao, held,
“…a best judgment order, of assessment, in the case of willful evasion of tax, by the dealer, would mean that the period of assessment, of six years, for every month would commence from the 20th day of the succeeding month, where returns have been filed in time. As there is no dispute that the returns have been filed, by the petitioner, within the prescribed time, the limitation of every month would have to be taken into account. In such circumstances, the order of assessment, dated 31.03.2021, is beyond the period of limitation set out for the months of April to February of the financial year 2014-15. Since the assessment order is beyond the period of limitation, the order of assessment, dated 31.03.2021, passed by the 1st respondent is to be set aside for the period April, 2014 to February, 2015.”
Case Title: PAMPANA KALYANI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 68
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Government school teacher's plea against freezing of her account by SBI– following an arbitral tribunal's order, after noting that the petitioner had neither impleaded the financial institution which had obtained the freezing order nor had the exhausted alternate remedy under the Arbitration Act.
Emphasising on significance of impleading a necessary and proper party to the petition, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,
“A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.”
Case Title: Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 69
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that married sister-in-laws taunting their brother's wife for not being able to conceive child cannot be taken as sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Quashing proceedings against sisters of the husband (first accused), who were together accused of subjecting the wife of the first accused to cruelty and demanding dowry, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,
“…the petitioners 3 and 4 after their marriage were staying away from the marital home of the 1st accused and the 3rd respondent. Even as per the complaint, the third respondent had joined the 1st accused and the petitioners 2 and 3 at Hyderabad. The only reference to the petitioners 3 and 4 is to the effect that, whenever they were visiting the home where the accused No.1 and the 3rd respondent were residing, they were taunting the third respondent for not being able to conceive, such vague allegations without any specific details as to on what date and when the said taunting was resorted to by petitioners 3 and 4 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tie-Breaker Lottery Clause In Tender Document
Case Title: G Venkata Ramana v. The State Of Ap and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 70
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to declare a lottery clause in a tender document, which envisaged that in case two bidders quote lowest commission, the tie will be broken based on draw of lottery— as arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held, “…the said clause, impugned in the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as arbitrary. In fact, the said clause was incorporated as part of fairness in the selection process. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, even without participating in the tender process, approached this Court.”
Case Title: C.narayana v. State Of AP and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 71
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared unconstitutional a 1996 government memo, which mandated Anti-Corruption Bureau officials to obtain the prior sanction of the Chief Minister before initiating enquiries, laying traps and registering cases against officers of the All India Services and Heads of Departments.
A division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, referred to the case of Vineet Narayan v. Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 889], where the Supreme Court had dealt with the legality of obtaining prior sanction of designated authority before initiating investigation against officers above a certain level and had held that accusation of corruption, in bribery and like cases, including trap cases, is based on direct evidence, and the level or status of the offender in such cases is irrelevant.
In light of these observations, the High Court held,
“…the executive orders of the State Governments in violation thereof had become inoperative, illegal and unconstitutional. As a corollary, the instructions contained in the impugned memo in contradistinction to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not survive. Further, as rightly stated in the counter affidavit, necessity of prior sanction provided in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only for prosecution but not for investigation.”
Case Title: Ravindra Muthavarapu v. The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 72
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot be used by the Excise Department to recover its dues from the directors of a liquidated company.
Section 88(3) states that the tax, interest or penalty of a private company, which has been wondup can be recovered from the directors of the company, subject to certain conditions, when such tax, penalty and interest is determined under the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao observed, “This can only mean that tax, penalty or interest which had been determined under the CGST Act, alone can be recovered from the directors of private company which are under liquidation, subject to the condition set out in Section 88(3) of the CGST Act.”
Case Title: Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State Of Ap and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 73
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has given relief to an employee who was reinstated into service after initial suspension, but was denied benefits of seniority and promotion under the guise of an anticipated departmental enquiry.
In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan, observed,
“…5th respondent as on today not initiated any disciplinary action even after lapse of almost two years. The same itself would go to show that respondents are not contemplating to initiate any disciplinary proceedings. The powers of suspension provided under Rule 8(1) presuppose that the respondents would initiate enquiry. In the present case the very basis for initiation of such enquiry found to be myth in view of the fact that no such action has been initiated as of now, the very issuance of suspension proceedings is clearly in violation and contrary to the aforesaid provision.”
Case Title: Thupakula Venkateswar Rao and others Vs. The State of AP and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 74
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules which stipulates restoration of commuted portion of pension after 15 years from the effective date of commutation, on the grounds that the petitioners had themselves derived benefit from the rule and the prescribed 15 year period.
The Court had to primarily determine whether the petitioners, who had reaped benefit of the 1944 Rules by way of commutation of pension, could challenge Rule 18 and the prescribed 15 year period for restoration of full pension. Dismissing a bunch of writ petitions, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“In our opinion, the petitioners having derived the benefit of lump sum payment on commutation of pension cannot be permitted to now challenge the very Scheme under which they had obtained the said benefit. The maxim qui approbat non reprobat, that is one who approbates cannot reprobate, is a doctrine which is embodied in English common law and is applied by Courts in this country. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate which is a species of estoppel clearly applies in the instant case.”
Caste System Alien To Christianity, Protection Of SC&ST Act Cannot Be Extended To Converts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Akkala Rami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 75
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30.04.2025, held that the caste system is alien to Christianity and an individual, who converted to Christianity and actively professes and practices the same, cannot continue to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is consequently barred from invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
“The caste system is alien to Christianity. Having converted to Christianity and admitting his role as a Pastor in a Church the 2nd respondent could not invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,” the Court said.
Quashing charges filed by a complainant who had converted to Christianity and had invoked the SC & ST Act, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N. further held,
“The SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a protective legislation introduced for preventing atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has misused the Protective Legislation though he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent had voluntarily converted to Christianity and was admittedly working as a Pastor in a Church for the last 10 years as on the date of incident. Thus, the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Protective Legislation.”
Case Title: SAVU VENKTA MURALI KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 76
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that intent behind prescribing a 30-day limit under the AP Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence in Chairperson/Vice Chairperson) Rules is to ensure that District Collector does not procrastinate convening the meeting and defeat the democratic right of the majority to express no confidence.
In doing so the court upheld a notice issued by Vizianagram's District Collector to the Chairperson of Bobbili Municipality, convening a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the chairperson.
Explaining the application of the Rule, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay in his order said:
“On a closer scrutiny of the purport of time limit mentioned in the above Rules, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 5 provides for rights for enforcement of “No Confidence Motion‟ on the signatories and casts an obligation on the District Collector to conduct the meeting within the time specified. The Rule 5 does not provide for any right to the Petitioner and it would be odd to say that Petitioner has a right of getting the “No Confidence Motion‟ enforced within 30 days. The time limit is to ensure that the District Collector does not procrastinate the statutory obligation to convene the meeting of “No Confidence Motion‟ and defeat the democratic right of the majority to express no confidence in the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson as the case may be. The time limit in Rule 5 is a sense of assurance to the signatories to the Form-I.”
Promotion Cannot Be Denied If Chargesheet Is Not Filed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
Case Title: SYED FARUQ AHMED v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 77
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of a Junior Assistant of Prohibition & Excise Department who was denied promotion to the post of Sub Inspector Prohibition & Excise Department on the grounds that he had a criminal case pending against him.
After relying on Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. K.V.Janaki Raman and others [(1991) 4 SCC 109], a Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,
“Crime No.13/RCT-ACB-OGL/2023, registered against petitioner by Anti-Corruption Bureau is still at the stage of investigation and no charge sheet has been filed. The Apex Court in the above judgment has categorically held that unless charge sheet is filed it cannot be said that criminal proceedings are pending against an employee, therefore, denying the benefit of promotion to such person on mere pendency of the investigation would be contrary to law. Even G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, issued by the Government, is also to the same effect.”
Case Title: Smt. T. Anitha v. Kummara Mohan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 78
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the appointment of the President Of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor, which was earlier set aside by an order of a Single Judge.
A Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,
“As per Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and as per Rule 5(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 the basic criteria for appointment to the post of District Judge is that a person should have practice as an Advocate for 7 years. In this case, the Appellant, as narrated above, was practising as an Advocate in Tirupathi Courts from the year 1999 onwards till 2010 i.e. till her appointment as Member of the District Consumer Commissions, Chittoor and Kadapa as stated above. As per the above Rule, a person should be qualified or had been qualified to be appointed for the post of District Judge. The words “he is, or has been or is qualified” occurring in Section 4(1)(a) of the Rules indicates that a person, who was qualified for the post of District Judge would suffice the criteria for appointment as President/Member. The Appellant having more than 7 years of practice as an Advocate and was qualified for appointment as District Judge. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner that the Appellant is not qualified cannot be sustained.”
Case Title: Chukka Divya Keerthana Reddy and Others v. The AP Medical Council and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 79
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the medical profession requires practical knowledge and clinical training, as a regular medical course is inclusive of skills training, dissections in laboratories to understand the human anatomy patient interaction, team based learning such as case studies and problem solving exercises, and the same cannot be substituted by online classes.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the action of The AP Medical Council (Respondent 1) in not issuing permanent registration certificate to the petitioners who had graduated in MBBS from foreign universities and were mandated to undergo a Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship (CRMI) for a period of two/three years (a schedule of 12 months to be repeated).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, while dismissing the petition, held,
“As noted from the proceedings of the 1st respondent, the students were instructed to continue their internship at their allotted medical college and Hospital until further orders of A.P.Medical Council. In the light of the circulars of the Government of India on the issue, the stages of medical education designed to impart required practical training cannot be overlooked”
Sale Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide Is Liable To Be Taxed At 5%: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 80
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the sale of liquid carbon dioxide is liable to be taxed at 5%.
The Bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao were addressing the issue of whether purified liquid Carbon Dioxide gas falls in the unclassified category of goods i.e., Schedule-V to the VAT Act, and is liable to be taxed @ 14.5% instead of 5%.
In this case, the assessee/petitioner is in the business of purchasing carbon dioxide and production of liquid carbon dioxide by scrubbing, purification, drying, filtration and liquefaction and selling the purified liquid carbon dioxide and Dry Ice.
The assessee, who was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 had declared the turnovers in relation to the said products, for the period February, 2016 to June, 2017 and paid tax @ 5% on the turnover of Carbon Dioxide Gas and @ 14.5% on the sale of Dry Ice. The Assessing Officer had accepted the said rate of tax, in relation to sale of Carbon Dioxide and passed an assessment order for the period February 2016 to June 2017.
Case Title: Smt. Shaik Asrifoon & 2 others v. Guddanti Vijaya Krishna & Another
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 81
After seventeen years, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted compensation to the dependents of a deceased cleaner on a lorry who was crushed to death after getting off the vehicle to confront a tractor driver who was driving negligently.
Holding that the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,
“…what all is required to make the employer liable to pay compensation is that the accident should have a casual connection to the employment and should be in the scope of employment of the employee. In this case, there can be no dispute that the accident occurred in the course of employment as the cleaner/deceased was going in the lorry on the instructions of the employer. The grey area is whether the accident is out of employment. The facts leading to the accident in this case is the thoughtless driving of the driver of the tractor, which led to the driver of the lorry and the deceased to get down from the lorry and questioned the driver of the tractor regarding the manner of his driving. The act of getting down from the lorry is a natural reaction and more so by the deceased, as the driver had got down from the lorry too. It would be unrealistic for the cleaner/deceased to remain seated in the lorry while the driver gets down as his loyalty and job would be called into question. The visualisable understanding of facts does not show any imprudent act or unnecessary exposure to peril by the deceased considering realities of life rather than on utopian idea of human conduct.”
Case Title: Katasani Rambhupal Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 82
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has restored the security cover of YSR Congress leader and a six time MLA from the Panyam Constituency Katasani Rambhupal Reddy's, which was earlier withdrawn by the state government.
The court noted that the report which was submitted was silent on whether a comprehensive study was conducted before concluding that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner.
“The security threat perspective report is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the identification of sources of threat indicates that there is no threat from any individual or from any group. The report did not consider the representation of the petitioner submitted to the 2nd respondent categorically indicating the threat perspective from one M.Rajasekhar. The same appears to have not been considered by the Security Review Committee. The security review committee meeting was conducted on 16.07.2024 and thereafter the threat perception report dated 27.04.2025 is submitted.”
Case Title: B VENKATESWARA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 83
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of a B.Tech student whose result of 3rd Semester was withheld and subsequently was not allowed to attend classes of further semesters on account of low attendance due to two spells of sickness. The Court ordered the GMR Institute of Technology (Respondent 4), to publish the result of the petitioner and allow him to continue attending classes of the 4th Semester.
Subsequently, holding Academic Regulation No.9(b), on the basis of which the student's result was withheld, as irrational and arbitrary, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, held—
“The Regulation 9 (b) would indicate that even on medical grounds, lack of attendance can only be condoned to an extent of 10 % and not more than that. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether such Regulation would stand to the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is a matter of common knowledge that sickness is beyond the human control. A variety of sicknesses can impair the functioning of the human being, thereby disabling the human being from attending to the normal duties. With respect to the things which are beyond the control of a human being, no specific Regulation can be issued, prescribing a limit for condonation of absence beyond a particular percentage of attendance. The present Regulation is not a Regulation which is prescribed by a Public Institution, but it is a Regulation prescribed by the Private College, which is Respondent No.4 - College, in the form of Academic Regulations. On the face of it, the Regulation No.9 (b) is not only irrational but highly arbitrary, inasmuch as no hard and fast rule can be laid with regard to the absence of a student on medical ground.”
Case Title: A.B.Venkateswara Rao, IPS v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 84
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed charges against A.B.Venkateswara Rao, former Additional Director General of Police for the intelligence department, accused of misusing his office by benefiting a third party, allegedly managed by his son, and causing loss to the government exchequer.
He was initially accused of committing offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 7(a)(c) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and Sections 409, 420, 120-B and read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Highlighting the role of the intelligence department and the duty of the petitioner, as the Head of the Intelligence Department, to adapt to the evolving needs of surveillance, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,
“Maintenance of Law and Order would largely depend on the inputs of the Intelligence Department. The intelligence inputs of the Intelligence Department plays a crucial role in crime prevention, Law Enforcement, National Security, Internal security, Counter Terrorism, Public Order apart from a host of other challenges faced on a day to day basis in maintaining Law and Order. The petitioner as the then Head of the Intelligence Department had the bounden duty to adopt the changing technology and attempted to upgrade the surveillance system of the state police. In the said process he had proposed for procuring the surveillance equipment from a supplier whose equipment would meet the requirements of the state police.”
Case Title: K. Mohan Rao v. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 85
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a preliminary enquiry loses its significance once regular enquiry is initiated and a major penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, particularly once the regular enquiry has been initiated by issuing a charge sheet.
Explaining further, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam held,
“Once the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge is not proved, the 1st respondent cannot impose the major penalty based on the preliminary report. Since the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry, as the Charged Officer or the delinquent is not associated with it, and the opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such enquiry is not given. Using of such evidence would be the violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the preliminary enquiry report loses its significance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing the charge sheet to the delinquent.”
Case Title: M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 86
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the adoption of new methodology for conducting gap analysis related to Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTFs) on the ground that such cases fall within the domain of expert bodies where the Courts should exercise judicial restraint.
Highlighting the importance exploring new methods for narrowing gaps for effective waste treatment, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, explained,
“…it is needful to note that inadequate number of treatment facilities and treatment facilities with inadequate capacity to treat the waste generated may result in unscientific disposal of bio-medical waste to the detriment of public health. The guidelines and the methodology for conducting gap analysis must aim to ensure effective treatment of bio medical waste for protection of environment and public health. Therefore, the concerned Pollution Control Boards must always strive to explore the new methods and modalities to narrow down the gaps, if any, for ensuring compliance of the object of guidelines. Any attempt to curtail them from switching on to new methodology based on studies and adopting the methods followed by the nations across the globe would entail derailment of State's Constitutional obligation for providing pollution free environment and protection of natural environmental resources.”
Case Title: M/s Acme Fitness Pvt Ltd v. The State Of AP and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 87
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while treadmills, dumbbells, rotators and fit-kit exercise kits, cannot be associated with one specific sport, these equipment are nonetheless used by sports persons to maintain physical fitness and thus fall in the description of “sports goods”.
While allowing a writ petition of a dealer of gym equipment who contended that such equipment related to sporting equipment, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, explained,
“Weight lifting equipment, is connected to the sport of weight lifting and would therefore qualify to be treated as sports goods, even according to the interpretation placed by the 5th respondent that only goods which are directly associated with a sport can be treated as sports goods. The other goods, such as treadmill, dumbbells, rotators and fit-kit exercise kit cannot be associated with any one specific sport. However, the fact remains that every sports person has to maintain physical fitness and the goods mentioned are used for maintaining such physical fitness. In such circumstances, the goods mentioned above would also answer the description of sports goods as these goods are needed by sports persons to maintain themselves physically and to achieve the necessary physical fitness to participate in any physical sport.”
Mere Pendency Of FIR Not Bar For Renewing, Reissuing Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Ravi Ramesh v. The Union Government Of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 88
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Vijaywada's Regional Passport Officer to renew/reissue the passport of a man, which was initially refused on the grounds that there was a FIR lodged against him for criminal breach of trust.
While disposing of the man's plea, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that since the jurisdictional Court had not taken cognisance, in such a circumstance, “mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/reissuing the passport.”
Case Title: Gonabavi Jani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 89
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a rowdy sheet opened against an individual who was accused of committing offences under Sections 448 (house-trespass), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w 34 of IPC, and was pending trial.
For reference, as per Police Standing Order (PSO) 736 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, a rowdy sheet can be maintained against persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security. The police may also open history sheets for suspects. Suspects are those persons who are convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code and who are considered likely to commit again. Persons who are not convicted but are believed to be addicted to crime are also treated as suspects. Ideally, such a history sheet should only be opened for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals.
While allowing a writ petition challenging the opening and continuation of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao referred to the dictum of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v Union of India (1963) and held,
“…it is asserted that C.C.No.1793 of 2022 is pending for trial on the file Judicial Magistrate First Class Kalyandurgam for offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. As per the A.P. Police Manual and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it was not established no assertion that the writ petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or affecting peace and tranquility in the area with the reasoning. The opening of the rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner therein was therefore tainted in law in its very inception.”
Case Title: Vennapusa Raghunath Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 90
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has permitted a life convict to attend the wedding ceremony of his son. While the life convict had been granted parole, his release was contingent on the return of another convict involved in the same offence who was out on parole at that time.
While referring to Rule 27 of the Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules 2024, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, held,
“In terms of Rule 27 of the Rules, it appears that the Superintendent of Central Prison is of the opinion that since there is already another convict namely Vemireddy Bala Chinnareddy on parole, granting parole to the petitioner's father would lead to law and order complications. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the convict's son i.e., the petitioner herein is getting married on 11.05.2025, we feel that interests of justice, as an exceptional case, warrant that the petitioner's father be permitted to join the wedding celebrations on 10.05.2025 and 11.05.2025 under proper police escort.”
Case Title: S.S. KARRI & ANOTHER v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 91
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the initiation of Surcharge Proceedings under Section 60 of the A.P Cooperative Societies Act on the ground that such proceedings are legally permissible even during the liquidation of a cooperative society.
After perusing Section 60 of the Act, which empowers the competent authority to initiate Surcharge Proceeding during the winding up of a society, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad in his order said:
“The above provision clearly indicates that the Surcharge Proceeding can be initiated even by the Liquidator. The said provision would also clearly indicate that the Surcharge Proceeding would go on even during the process of winding up of the Society. In view of the very clear wording indicated in Section 60 of the Act, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners pales-away, inasmuch as the said submission is directly in conflict with the Section 60 of the Act. Unfortunately, the impugned proceeding that was challenged way back in the month of November, 2006, stood suspended by an Interim Order on 01.12.2006 (almost 19 years ago). In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the Surcharge Proceeding under Section 60 of the Act can be initiated by the competent authority and to be proceeded with even during the course of the liquidation process.”
Case Title: Seelam Atma Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 92
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 392 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which restrains formation of any private street without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner, the consent of a private street owner who opposes alterations in the street has no relevance.
In this regard, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay, in his order said:
“The Section 392 ensures that streets formed align with the connecting roads in the city and ensures organised city development. The wording “to the satisfaction of Commissioner” in Section 392(2) reflects the wide amplitude of power of the Commissioner to make alterations in the street in question. The consent of private street owner is of no relevance for exercise of power under this Section.”
Case Title: VALLURU SIVA PRASAD v. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION STAMPS GUNTUR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 93
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently underscored the dire need of the Central and State Governments to undertake a comprehensive revision of their existing litigation policies in order to ensure that unwarranted, repetitive, frivolous and vexatious litigation is reduced.
Highlighting the detriment of excessive and needless State-sponsored litigation, a Justice Subba Reddy Satti in his order said:
“The State or its instrumentalities are expected to be a model litigant and shall maintain ethical standards in prosecuting the litigation, being a compulsive litigant. Of late, this Court has noticed that the State or its instrumentalities are creating litigation and compelling individuals to approach the Courts. The State-sponsored litigation not only burdens the private parties but also undermines the credibility of the State as a responsible litigant.”
"It is, therefore, high time that both the Central and the State governments undertake a comprehensive revision of their existing litigation policies to ensure that unwarranted litigation is reduced. This Court hopes that if the litigation policy is implemented, it will not only curb frivolous, vexatious and repetitive litigations, but also protects the rights of private citizens and uphold the integrity of the justice system," the court added.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Lakshmi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 94
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09.05.2025, held that an excavator, which is a “mechanically propelled machine”, comes within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the 1988 Act”)
Section 2(28) enacts that a 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means “any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.”
In this regard, Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar further explained,
“The above definition informs that a motor vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. The definition has an exclusionary principle stating that vehicles running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises and vehicles of less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic centimeters. In the case at hand, the excavator was not on any enclosed premises, and it was not a vehicle with engine less than 25 cubic centimeters or less. At the material point of time, it was not in any factory or closed premises. It was in a public place. It was also not on fixed rails. Therefore, it does not fall within the exclusionary clause of motor vehicle.”
Case Title: Bhashyam Venkata Rao and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 95
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea challenging allotment of a Government land by the District Collector, Visakhapatam District (Respondent 3) as burial ground for Muslim Community.
In this regard, Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held,
"It is pertinent to mention that, the proposed land was identified for burial ground inasmuch as the existing burial ground was affected in 60-0 master plan. The respondents, after following the procedure contemplated under law and taking into consideration of all the aspects including the feasibility, identified the proposed land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.138/1, for allotment of burial ground, which is adjacent to existing burial grounds of Hindu and Christian religions. From the foregoing reasons, the interference of this Court is not warranted."
Case Title: Tappa Abdul Rasool v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 96
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that if the State Government considers a candidate who ranked first in the order of seniority unfit for appointment to Consumer Forum due to suitability and integrity concerns, his antecedent report along with the state's opinion, must be placed before the Selection Committee for reconsideration.
If, after such reconsideration, the Selection Committee still reaffirms its recommendation, then the state government is bound to appoint the individual.
A Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, observed,
“Therefore, in cases where the Government is of the opinion that a particular individual ranked first in the order of seniority is not considered to be fit for appointment as Chairman/member on account of antecedent report vis-a-vis suitability and integrity, then such a report along with the opinion of the State Government should be placed before the Selection Committee for reconsideration of order of merit. If the Selection Committee after taking note of the antecedent report and the opinion of the Government may still recommend the said individual and then the Government is bound to appoint the individual".
Case Title: Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 97
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that police authorities should refrain from interfering into civil disputes pertaining to land, under the guise of amicable settlement between parties.
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in his order said,
“…when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes.”
Case Title: Dr. A. Himabindu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of reserved seats for in-service candidates in Post graduate Medical Courses in state government quota.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, examined the relevant observations of the committee which propounded that the reservation policy for in-service candidates was introduced to fill specialist vacancies in medical services, which further led to a significant increase in available specialists and a reduction in vacancies. With a rise in PG seats in both government and private colleges, more in-service candidates qualified. However, the report also highlighted that in certain specialties, the number of qualified in-service candidates exceeded the available posts, making it difficult to accommodate them.
In light of this, the Court held,
“The report, placed before this Court, by the 1st respondent sets out, in detail, the number of seats that would be available. The statistics set out in this report clearly make a case for reduction of the seats that are made available to in-service candidates. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the reduction of seats, for in-service candidates, has been made on a predetermined basis cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: Kosuri Radha Vs. The State of AP and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 99
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order by the single judge who had invoked the Doctrine of Pleasure to uphold removal of a nominated member from the General Body of the District Livestock Development Association, Ongole.
Referring to the facts of the case, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:
“…while the byelaws did envisage nomination by the Collector to the General Body of the Society, there was no power specifically envisaged as per the byelaws which could authorize the Collector to curtail the tenure prematurely of such nominated members. While there is no doubt that the initial nomination of the petitioner was based on political considerations, yet for purposes of invoking the pleasure doctrine, there ought to have been a specific power vested in the Collector to terminate such an appointment, in the absence whereof, the said doctrine, in our opinion, could not have been invoked to justify the issuance of the order impugned in the writ petition.”
"In the present case, in the absence of there being any specific power vested with the Government to remove a nominated Member which can be otherwise traced to a statute and in the absence of any such specific power being traced to the Government in terms of the byelaws, in our opinion, the Government could not have issued directions seeking the resignation or removal of the nominated members," the court added.
Case Title: S Bhargav Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 100
Taking note of the growing menace of online abuse and trolling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has urged the State Government to instruct social media intermediaries to 'auto block' the usage of expletives, swear words, militant words, and words akin thereto, on social media platforms.
A bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed this order while observing that vulgar, hate-filled, and abusive posts on social media have become the "new age norm", and that 'trolls' attract lightning responses all over, particularly when directed at celebrities or political leaders of stature and following.
“It appears that profanity thrives the business entities as they attract instantaneous reactions,” the single judge remarked as it emphasised that every citizen has the right to lead a dignified life, which is a human right recognised under the Constitution of India.
“The State Government is obligated to ensure that this right to a dignified life of citizens is not infringed, and it is in that context that the list of expletives, swear words, militant words, and words akin thereto should be identified by the State Government, and executive instructions should be issued, in exercise of their power under the Constitution, prohibiting usage of such words on social media,” the bench observed in its order passed earlier this month.
Regularisation Scheme Doesn't Cover Every Unauthorized Occupant Of Govt Land: AP High Court Rejects Plea Against Eviction
Case Title: Nallaballe Sreenivas and others V. The State of A.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 101
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by certain occupants stated to be occupying Government land who had sought protection from eviction citing a recently introduced regularisation scheme.
Noting that the regularisation scheme did not universally shield all unauthorised occupations of Government land, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“Mere filing of a memo accompanied with a copy of the regularization scheme would not itself have been sufficient to claim any omission on the part of the Court to grant an appropriate relief more so, when there was no specific direction sought in the petition in the light of the scheme of regularization. Even otherwise the regularization scheme reference to which has been made by the learned counsel before us, needs to be gone into minutely, as the scheme to us is not meant to cover every case of unauthorized occupation over Government Land. The presence of a scheme for regularization may, in fact, is an independent cause of action for which the petitioners perhaps may have a remedy yet again before the Court.”
Case Title: M/s. Jaya Venkatarama Industries Limited v. The Esi Corporation And 4 Others and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 102
A single judge bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the mere absence of an ESI dispensary nearby cannot exempt an establishment from liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”). The court clarified that only the appropriate govt is empowered to grant such exemptions under Section 87 of the Act, and that such exemptions ought to follow a separate application and inquiry process.
AP High Court Reduces Fine Imposed On 84-Year-Old Man In Jail For Electricity Theft To ₹20K Citing 'Extreme Old Age'
Case Title: Peram Venkata Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 103
While upholding an order passed by special tribunal convicting an 84-year-old man convicting him for electricity theft under Electricity Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court however reduced the fine imposed on him from Rs.2,70,000 to Rs 20,000.
Setting aside the said fine, Justice Y. Lakshamana Rao held,
“Section 135(1)(a)(b) of 'the Act' does not confer imposition of Rs.2,70,000/- towards fine. There would have been a justification on the part of the learned Trial Court, if reasonable amount was directed to be paid by the Appellant towards compensation to the Corporation. The petitioner has been in jail for the past fifteen days. He is aged about 84 years at present. If an amount of Rs.20,000/- is directed to be paid towards compensation to the Corporation, it would meet the ends of justice.”
"In view of the extreme old age of the Appellant and the Appellant's impoverishment in payment of huge amount as fine, it is appropriate to direct the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the Corporation," the court said.
The court said that after the compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid by the appellant, he "shall be released forthwith".
Stranger Can't Seek Survey, Demarcation Of Land Owned By Private Persons: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 104
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a stranger to a private land cannot seek its survey or demarcation, and that survey applications can only made be made by persons who own the private land.
The Court was called upon to determine whether a survey of a private land, at the request of a private individual, could be conducted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
Referring to Board Standing Order, Rule 20 of which allows for applications from private parties to be submitted to point out the boundaries of their fields in accordance with the survey records, a division bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice BVLN Chakravarthi held,
“While Rule 20 of B.S.O. 34-A provides for applications to be made for conduct of survey of private lands, the language of the Rule, extracted above, would indicate that such applications can only be made by persons in relation to land owned by them. On this basis, these provisions cannot be stretched to mean that a survey could be conducted where the applicant is not able to demonstrate a clear claim over the said land. It is clear that no stranger can seek survey of private lands or for demarcation of the fields.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 105
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that criminal case filed by a wife to embarrass and incarcerate her husband and his family members, when in reality they are not guilty, causes persistent trauma and humiliation in social circle, and constitutes mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.
Applying this principle to a case where the wife's allegations resulted in the husband and his parents facing prosecution and eventual acquittal, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tihari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,
"Mental cruelty cause much serious injury than physical harm. The criminal cases filed by wife to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and his family members cause persistent trauma, humiliation in social circle which amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of H.M.Act, and particularly when in reality they are not guilty and so acquitted. Such can only be imagined by others. Its difficult to prove mental cruelty and therefore the normal rule which governs the criminal proceedings is that it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt"
“We are of the considered view that the act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.228 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his parents in which they had to obtain bail and were finally acquitted as the allegations were not proved was a conduct causing mental cruelty, and agony to the husband. It amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M.Act,” it added.
Case Name- Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 106
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) applicant, who sought appointment under the BC-E category in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Services, and had her candidature rejected on account of non-compliance with eligibility conditions.
Following the publication of a recruitment advertisement, the petitioner had submitted her non-creamy layer certificate much after the entire selection process had concluded. In this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati explained,
“According to the advertisement notification, it was made clear to the petitioner and similarly situated others that any applicant who intended to avail the reservation had to upload the non-creamy layer certificate, and in case of failure to upload the same, that the candidate would be considered under the open merit category. The petitioner, therefore, was required to upload the requisite certificate before the last date for application prescribed in the advertisement notification, i.e., 8.12.2022, and therefore, clearly her case could not have been considered in any category except the open category as had clearly been made clear in the said notification.”
Case Title: K.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Executive Officer waqf And 3 Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 107
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Waqf Board is authorised under Section 65(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act of 1995) to take over the management of a mosque in cases of evident mismanagement, despite the existence of a judicially formulated scheme governing the management of the mosque.
In the present case, the mismanagement of Shahji Jamia Mosque, Adoni, was in question, where misappropriation of roughly Rs.150 crores of property and violations of the Act of 1995 was involved, including a failure to submit annual income accounts, budget proposals, and expenditure statements.
In this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“Regarding overriding effect of the provisions of the Waqf Act by virtue of Section 108A, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same shall be read in conjunction with Section 32 of the Act. Upon such, the end result would be that the Board will have general superintendence so as to ensure that waqf properties are properly maintained, controlled and administered and income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such waqf was created, however, such a superintendence, shall be subject to any scheme made by any Court of law, whether before or after the commencement of the Act.”
Case Name- Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary SPSUP School vs The State Of AP & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 108
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has struck down the Computer-Based Test (CBT) method for the selection and appointment of teachers in schools receiving grant-in-aid.
In the absence of a legislation permitting the Executive to introduce a new system of selection and appointment of teachers, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,
"Howsoever laudable the object of the proposed conduct of Computer Based Test (CBT) may be, the same cannot be introduced without being backed-up by a legislation or a subordinate legislation. It certainly cannot be done through an executive fate either in the form of an executive instruction or executive order. When the system which had been introduced for conducting Computer based test had been expressly set aside by striking down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state cannot introduced the same system indirectly by an executive order or an executive instruction, for, what you cannot do directly, you cannot do it indirectly either.”
The Single Judge added,
“Although, the Court takes note of the increase in the competition and also increase in the number of applications for filling up the teacher posts, the state may take steps in bringing in a suitable legislation or subordinate legislation for introducing the new system that may be commensurate with the current needs and exigencies. Till such time, the State has not brought in a legislation or subordinate legislation by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting the Rule-13 of the Rules-1994, the State cannot introduced the Computer Based Test (CBT).”
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya High School v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 109
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to consider enhancing the pre-matric scholarship amount for M/s Chaitanya High School—a school selected under the Best Available Schools (BAS) Scheme in SPSR Nellore District—on par with similar schools in other districts who were sanctioned a higher amount.
Highlighting that no reasons were accorded explaining the denial of the full scholarship amount of Rs.20,000 per student to the petitioner school, despite a favorable recommendation by the District Level Committee (DLC), Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held,
“Even according to principles of natural justice, the authorities must disclose reasons for arriving at such conclusion and it is only to enable the person to know the reason for passing any adverse order against him. When the decision taken by the respondents is arbitrary, such action can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The word “Arbitrariness‟ is the quality of being “determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen the Right to Equality. It applies the principle of Equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons.”
The Court added,
“…since the petitioners fall under the category of Best Available Schools, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners schools for enhancement of pre-matric scholarship amount under Best Available Schools Scheme and enhance the amount of Rs.15,000/- to Classes III & IV; Rs.20,000/- to Class V to X per student per annum, on par with other Best Available Schools. The respondents shall pay the arrears to the petitioners' schools along with interest @ 6% per annum, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Case Title: K S VIJAY ANAND v. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 110
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted relief to a senior-most high school teacher who was transferred despite the presence of two junior teachers, under the pretext of adjusting surplus aided staff to needy aided schools in the Nandyal District.
The plea sought a direction to declare the State's January 16 order as unconstitutional which proposed deputation of the petitioner to SRKGV Aided HS Mahanandi as per G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (PS) Department dated 22.06.2023, on the ground of "work adjustment of surplus aided teachers into the needy Aided Schools in Nandyal District".
Justice Challa Gunaranjan in his order said,
“Plain reading of aforesaid clause goes to show that either on one's willingness to accept transfer or if it is a compulsory transfer, the same has to commence from junior most in the category of the post. Apparently, in the present case, there are three Secondary Grade Teachers working, of which petitioner is senior most amongst them. In terms of aforesaid guidelines, person who is junior most has to be first deputed on transfer and only thereafter, petitioner could have been transferred. The impugned order to the extent of transferring petitioner who is senior most without exhausting the transfers of juniors is clearly in contravention of the aforesaid clause.”
Case Title: VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 111
In a judgment dated May 06, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the enhancement of the minimum annual turnover threshold for bidders—from five crores to ten crores—for qualification under a Government Tender issued for printing and distribution of school textbooks/workbooks for students studying in private schools for the Academic Years 2025-2026 & 2026-2027.
Reaffirming the right of the Government to prescribe or modify the tender conditions “at will”, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,
“…this Court is of the view that reference to such Tender conditions has no relevance inasmuch as every individual Authority has always right to either prescribe or to modify the Tender conditions "at will". One idiomatic expression states that “Monkeys cannot decide the affairs of the forest‟ likewise, a bidder can never dictate the employer or the Government Authority with regard to the fixation of tender conditions or the parameters.”
The Court thus held,
“…that the increase of the threshold with regard to the turnover from five crores per annum to ten crores per annum is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This Court is also of the opinion that giving latitude to the bidders to show the minimum turnover of ten crores for two years period during the last five financial years is also not arbitrary. The facts in the present case would also indicate that out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders have reached the threshold of turnover of ten crores. Therefore, it cannot be said that fixation of the 10 crores threshold is arbitrary in nature nor is it discriminative in any manner because out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders were qualified in the technical bid.”
Case Title: Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 112
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to former Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (A1) and a representative of M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd. (A2), a private company entrusted with the manual evaluation of Group-I main exam answer scripts, who were accused of criminal breach of trust and irregularities in the manual evaluation process, including shifting of answer scripts to a private location and employing unqualified school teachers for evaluation.
While A1 had urged the invocation of Section 197 of CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the government before a Court can take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of their official duty, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava held,
“…unless it is established that the alleged act was in excess of discharge of his official duties, and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of official duty, the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., would not arise. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the investigation is at the threshold, the protection as envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner A-1.”
Case Title: Central Bank of India v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 113
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of Central Bank of India (petitioner) to recover its secured debts by sale of the mortgaged assets under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and has ruled that it assumes priority over the claims of the State Government for recovery of dues under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT Act).
On account of specific statutory provisions that granted secured creditors priority over other debts and government dues, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“…it can be seen that now there is a specific provision providing for priority in favour of the secured creditors, to realize the secured debts, due and payable to them, over all other debts and Government dues, we have no hesitation to hold that the right of the petitioner Bank to recover its dues by sale of the secured asset would have priority over the arrears which were sought to be recovered by the respondent State under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.”
Case Title: The Indian Cement Limited v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 114
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to extend effective police protection to Indian Cement Limited (petitioner), a subsidiary of UltraTech Cements, in light of escalating tensions and disruption of operations caused by contract labourers, allegedly upon the instigation of a local politician.
Taking serious note of the law and order situation prevailing in the factory premises of the petitioner, Justice Harinath N observed,
“Maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the State. A manufacturing unit established in a remote area of the State, which has generated direct and indirect employment to several people, cannot be left in the lurch and bleed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying taxes to the State and paying GST. Abrupt closure of the unit would result in a loss to the exchequer on account of non-payment of taxes.”
“As seen from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, it is amply clear that a normal atmosphere is not prevailing near the petitioner's factory and an uneasy tension is in the air. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take all necessary and required steps to maintain law and order and to ensure free ingress and egress of men and material. Adequate and effective police protection is to be extended to the petitioner company to restart its activities.” the Court added.
Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 115
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a transgender woman in heterosexual marriage can file a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa emphasized that a transgender woman, identifying as a female and living in a marital relationship with a man, cannot be excluded from the protection of laws meant to safeguard women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty.
"A transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, cannot be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband or the relatives of her husband," it observed.
Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 116
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of a retired employee of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Birth (DOB) in the official service records, after having received all promotions and service benefits based on the same date.
In this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,
“Petitioner at the fag end of his career when his superannuation was approaching, preferred representations to the respondent authorities, by simply blaming the respondents as if his Date of Birth had been changed. But, the petitioner is not able to substantiate his assertion regarding the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Birth in the service Record. In the absence of the prerequisite foundational facts regarding his case, it is not apt for this Court to go into an arena which is purely a disputed question of fact, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident from the record that, did not raise any objection with respect to the Seniority List prepared by the respondents' corporation even today. But for the sake of extension of his services after 28 years of service from the date of joining, he is disputing his date of birth in the service register.”
Commenting that the case comes within the ambit of doctrine of 'Approbate and Reprobate', the Court added,
“The petitioner himself produced his Educational Certificate issued by the concerned District Education Officer on his own volition, in which his Date of Birth is stated as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the version of the respondents Corporation. But, on the fag end of his career, he has taken the plea that is date of birth is 25.08.1961, so as to extend his service and receive its consequential benefits. Thus, the case of the petitioner directly comes under the ambit of 'Approbate and Reprobate', which in general words means one cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. In other words, a person cannot be allowed to have the advantage of a document while challenging the same. In such an event, the petitioner either has to affirm or disaffirm the said transaction.”
Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 117
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a man's plea against the decision of the Waqf Tribunal which had adjudicated on a suit concerning a disputed land, despite the fact that a civil court had decided the matter 45 years ago giving a finding that the disputed property is not a waqf property.
The court thus said that the Waqf Tribunal does not have the power to adjudicate any case which is the subject-matter of a suit filed before the civil court before the commencement of the Waqf Act, or any appeal/decree arising out of such a suit.
Reiterating that the Tribunal cannot entertain a suit seeking declaration of title over the land which was already adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held,
“When a competent Civil Court recorded a finding in an earlier suit that the property does not belong to the wakf institution, the present suit filed by the wakf institution after a lapse of 41⁄2 decades for declaration of title, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not maintainable given Section 7(5) of the Act. The present Mutavalli, the son of the earlier Mutavalli who lost the suit on an earlier occasion, woke up from deep slumber and filed the present suit after 41⁄2 decades. Once Section 7(5) of the Act comes into action, the Tribunal, at no stretch of imagination, can continue the suit on its file for further adjudication. The corollary would be that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and hence, a writ of prohibition can be issued in the facts of this case.”
'Ganja' Seeds, Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 118
In a judgement dated 23.06.2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the definition of 'Ganja' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is limited to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, and excludes from its ambit the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,
“As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of 'Ganja' is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant.”
Case Title: Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted permission to a trust which manages Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple (petitioner) located in Tiruchanur near Tirupati, to conduct the Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu–nine day Navratri festival–from June 26 to July 5.
In an order passed on June 16 the petitioner, along with one Y Gangi Reddy (Respondent 7)- with whom the petitioner was involved in a land dispute, were barred by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Respondent 5) from entering the land on which the Trust was situated and where the festival was intended to be conducted.
Against this backdrop, Justice Harinath N observed,
“The impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025 shall stand suspended till 06.07.2025. The 6th (SHO) respondent shall extend necessary bundobust to the petitioner/Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust for performing the proposed “Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu” from 26.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The petitioner also shall cooperate with the 6th respondent and ensure that the no law and order problem is created on account of the permission granted.”
Case Title: MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120
In a case involving the illegal construction of a bridge over a Canal in Andhra Pradesh's Kaikaluru town, the High Court has called for stringent laws that punish not only public violators but also the government officials who turn a blind-eye to illegal encroachments and violations on waterways.
Taking serious note of the detrimental impact of such encroachments and calling for legislative reforms that hold officials accountable for sitting on such issues, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,
“These violations on waterways and watercourses in which fresh water or drainage water flows are damaging or destroying the flora and fauna besides causing humongous damage to the human inhabitations. In times of flood, inundation of land by water become virtual death-traps for animals in the wild (in forests) as well as to the humans in the villages, towns and metropolitan cities. It is also noticed that the violators go scot-free with impunity because the existing law, does not have a deterrent effect. Therefore, it is the right time for the Government (law makers) to make laws, rules and regulations to weaponise the Government Departments to achieve this purpose. This law needs to address not only the violators from among the public, but also the Officials who conveniently turn a blind-eye to the acts of violation."
Thereafter, in public interest, the Court issued multiple guidelines to combat the detriments of illegal encroachments on waterways.
Case Title: Murali Jai Ganesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted 17-day interim bail to a murder convict, who is pursuing a five-year B.Com LL. B course, to enable him to appear for his final semester examinations.
A bench of Justice K Suresh Reddy and Justice V Sujatha passed the order to “meet the ends of justice” as the convict's appeal against his conviction is presently pending before the court.
The interim relief was granted to the appellant (Accused No.2/Murali Jai Ganesh), who was convicted in May last year by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Following his conviction, he was taken into custody and is currently serving his sentence in Central Prison, Kadapa.
Case Title: Chilikuri Mariyadas v. The State of A.P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 122
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently set aside a conviction under Section 306 of IPC on the grounds that beating of the deceased and mere verbal humiliation upon accusations of marital infidelity, without any positive act to incite or instigate commission of suicide, does not constitute abetment of suicide.
In the present case, the deceased's husband and brother-in-law, suspecting her fidelity, had allegedly insulted and beaten her on the night prior to her death, which compelled her to commit suicide.
Noting that the act of beating the deceased on yester-night cannot lead to the presumption that petitioners intended to push her to commit suicide, Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed,
“There was no evidence to the effect that the Petitioners either goaded or provoked or instigated or encouraged her to commit suicide. Therefore, it may not be right to hold that the Petitioners were guilty of abetment of suicide. The deceased felt insulted or humiliated as her brother-in-law and husband beat her on the pretext that she had not kept her matrimonial piousness. The action of the Petitioners is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, the deceased was hypersensitive, as such, it would not be appropriate and proper to convict the Petitioners for abetment of suicide.”
Case Title: AP Judicial Office Sub Ordinates Association v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by the AP Judicial Office Subordinates Association, which challenged the practice of office subordinates of District Courts being made to perform unofficial domestic duties at the residences/quarters of Judges, often beyond regular working hours.
The petitioner had relied on a Circular dated 24.02.1992 (Circular of 1992), issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh– to argue that the said Circular did not include any domestic services which office-subordinates were mandated to perform.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam, relied on the case of T.M. Mani Kumar vs. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr (T.M. Mani Kumar 2005)—where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed a contention that the Circular of 1992 acts as a bar against any domestic duties, and held—
“…it would have to be held that the Circular of 1992 is not an exhaustive list of the duties that are to be performed by office subordinates and other duties may also be given to the office subordinates. The practice in the District judiciary has been that a certain number of office subordinates are attached to the residences of the Judicial Officers for domestic duties. In such circumstances, the claim of the deponent to the affidavit that domestic duties are not part of the duties of the office subordinates cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: The Government Of Andhra Pradesh v. E Subba Rao and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 124
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the regularisation of E. Subba Rao (Respondent 1)— who had worked 30 continuous years as 'Games Peon' at Guntur Medical College and was being denied regularisation on the ground that the post of 'Games Peon' did not officially exist.
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) had allowed an application seeking regularisation filed by Respondent 1 and consequently directed the State (Petitioner 1) to consider his regularisation on the grounds that he was appointed on contingent basis on a fixed salary in Guntur Medical College— which was run with government funds, and was receiving government cheques drawn on SBI Treasury, which showed that the salaries were paid by the Government.
Affirming the APAT order, Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held,
“The meaning of the word 'peon', as per Oxford Dictionary for Indian subcontinent includes a low ranking soldier or worker, therefore, it can be understood that, 'peon' is an office messenger, attendant and usually refers to support the staff in an office/association, also known as 'office assistant'. Their duties include maintaining cleanliness, providing general support to office staff.”
Case Title: KADURU CHINNAPPANNA v/s STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 125
In a case concerning allegations on use of adulterated ghee for preparing laddus offered as prasadam at Tirumala Tirupati Temple, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that CBI Director overreached Supreme Court's directions by nominating an officer as IO to conduct the probe who was not part of the SIT constituted under the apex court's directions.
Justice Harinath N in his order noted that SIT was first formed by the State last year which was reconstituted with the directions of the Supreme Court of India and the respondent no. 10 J Venkat Rao "is not specifically named as Officer representing the State in the SIT constituted in pursuance" of the apex court's directions.
The court referred to Supreme Court's orders in the matter and observed that it made clear that investigation should be conducted by an independent SIT consisting of the five members and the investigation was entrusted to the independent agency consisting of these members, adding that in such circumstances the "CBI could not have nominated the respondent officer contrary to the apex court's directions.
"The submissions of the learned standing counsel that the Director, CBI is empowered to nominate the 10th respondent as investigating officer is unsustainable. The judgments relied upon by the learned standing counsel cannot be made applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The case on hand involves religious sentiments of the crores of devotees and the cloud on the invaluable sacredness of the Laddu Prasadam is being investigated... Inclusion of 10th respondent as investigating officer over and above the number of reconstituted SIT is not permissible and would certainly over reach the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Director, CBI could not have directed the 10th respondent to conduct investigation. The said direction is contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the WP.(Civil).No.622 of 2024. The proceedings dated 28.10.2024 has been issued by the Director overreaching the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India".
Press Freedom To Be Protected, Criminal Complaints Can't Be Filed Based On Interpretations Of News Reports : AP High Court
Case Title: Veladi Suguna Shekara Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 126
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against a Senior Journalist and Editor of Sakshi Daily Newspaper, who was charged under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for publication of an article titled “Ummadi Krishnajillalo Arachakam”, which was alleged to be premised on false information having the potential to instigate violent riots and mislead the public.
For reference, Section 353(2) penalises anyone who makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or both.
Justice Harinath N., finding no element in the article that could instigate or promote enmity between groups, reiterated that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution not only guarantees freedom of speech and expression but also protects the right of an individual to listen, read and receive speech and article.
The Single Judge further observed,
“Registration of Crime on receipt of a complaint regarding publication of article which neither resulted in promoting enmity between groups nor did it incite any commotion or rights. This Court is of the considered view that the Law is well settled on the Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Freedom of Press has to be protected for ensuring that information from all angels would reach the masses. For every issue there can be a 360° degree dimensional view and as such views from different angles cannot become subjects of criminal complaints. In the event the article is defamatory it is always open for the person so defamed proceed damages by during the extent of defamation which the article allegedly caused.”
Case Title: SHAIK ASIF and Others v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 127
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a successive anticipatory bail plea of three persons accused of operating a brothel under the guise of running a Spa and recruiting women into prostitution.
The three accused were earlier denied anticipatory bail by the High Court on May 8.
Rejecting the second bail application, Justice Mallikarjuna Rao while referring to judgments on the subject said:
"...it is clear that unless there is a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the petitioners' second anticipatory bail application.”
Emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege, the court said that it "should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the accused is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted".
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 128
The Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier this week refused to grant bail to a 21-year-old man accused of brutally murdering the wife of his employer (a proctologist/Doctor) and subsequently committing rape on her dead body, noting that the accused's conduct was 'monstrous' and amounted to an act of 'outrageous criminality'.
Perturbed over the serious allegations levelled against the accused, a bench of Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao further observed that the accused had 'gravely' betrayed his employer's trust, and that his close involvement with the family's private space had made the crime 'especially shocking' and 'deeply distressing'.
"The material on record prima facie shows that the petitioner gravely betrayed his employer's trust by committing the murder of his wife; as a compounder living in the complainant's home, he was regarded as a loyal and trusted member of the household; his close involvement in daily life and access to the family's private space make this crime especially shocking and deeply distressing", the bench observed.
"…the petitioner acted in a beastly manner—driven by lust, he approached the deceased, and when she resisted, he feared she would report his offence to her family; to conceal his crime, he ruthlessly ended the life of the innocent victim; the accused inflicted brutal and cruel head injuries on the young deceased; the manner in which the deceased was murdered—both in approach and method—reveals the petitioner's outrageous criminality and premeditation…", the Court further noted.
Case Title: SMT. VANA LAKSHMI v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT, SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANVADI WORKERS/HELPERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 129
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of an Anganwadi Worker posted in Poonampeta Village who was removed from service on the allegation of surpassing the required age of 35 years and for not being resident of Poonampeta Village where the Anganwadi post had been notified.
Regarding the issue of 'exceeding' the prescribed age limit, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao said,
“If the notification specifies the age limit as "not exceeding 35 years" on a particular date, it means a candidate's age should be less than 36 years and should not cross the age of 35 years, petitioner born on 01.01.1977 and the maximum age to apply as per notification is 35 years as on 01.07.2011. If it calculated the age of the petitioner is 34 years 6 months as she not completed the age of 35 years as per the recruitment notification. The maximum age limit indicates that the individual must not exceed the age notified in the notification.”
Case Title: BHOLE BADA ORGANIC DAIRYMILK PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 130
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered the de-freezing of bank accounts of a Roorkee based company accused of supplying adulterated and substandard Cow Ghee worth approximately Rs 2 crore.
Highlighting the detriments of continued freezing of the bank accounts, Justice Harinath N said,
“Continuation of the freeze on the bank account of the petitioner would lead to other legal consequences for the petitioner-company. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot pay its statutory dues including the statutory authority and shall also default in paying salaries of its staff. The net result of freezing of the bank accounts of a going concern would slowly render the company as a non-performing assert. The same is detrimental to the interest of the company and the employees who are dependent on the company. The livelihood of the employees and their dependents on the company salary would also be impacted once the cash flow is disrupted.”
Case Title: Rela Rajeswari vs. State of AP AND BATCH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 131
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has remitted four criminal appeals– two challenging dismissal of discharge applications and the other two challenging framing of charges –back to the trial court in a UAPA case, after noting that statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the accused.
A division bench Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V Sujatha in its order noted that admittedly from July 1, 2024 the BNSS replaced the CrPC.
The bench without entering the merits of the matter, noted that admittedly as per the parties, the statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the appellants in four criminal appeals which was required under Section 230 (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents) BNSS.
"Once the statements were not supplied to the accused as per the provisions of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the further proceedings would be vitiated. Of course, in all these judgments referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that serious prejudice would be caused for nonsupply of the documents, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, akin to Section 207 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the accused were seriously prejudiced by non-supply of statements of protected witnesses to them. The learned Special Judge, while dismissing the discharge applications, referred to the statements of protected witnesses in his order. As such, in the considered view of this Court that the appellants have no opportunity to look into the statements of the protected witnesses. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that, all the appellants were prejudiced by non-supply of the statements of the protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023".
Case Title: M KARTHIKEYA DEGREE COLLEGE v. THE STATE OF AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 132
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that withholding of results by a University owing to unpaid arrears by affiliated Colleges is a “pernicious-practice” which mars the careers and future prospects of students by treating them as “merchandise” who can be used by Universities and Colleges as a “bait to bargain with each other”.
In the instant case, Acharya Nagarjuna University (Respondent 2) withheld the Final Year Degree Examination results (VIth Semester) owing to non-payment of dues by its affiliated degree colleges (petitioners).
Noting that such a practice “shakes the ethical foundations of our education system”, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad rebuked,
“The dispute is essentially between the Colleges and the University, insofar as the recovery of money is concerned. Unfortunately, both have chosen to treat the careers and future prospects of the students as 'merchandise', which ought not to have been done at all. This extreme and perverse method adopted by the University shakes the ethical foundations of our educational system and also the very object for which the University has been founded. The University is a temple of higher learning, with its paramount, if not the sole object is to impart Education. The purpose of imparting Education is for shaping the careers and future of the Students, which is also the part of Nation-building. It appears to this Court that the whereas, the Respondent University seem to have manifestly forgotten its primordial and indispensable function of imparting education…”
The Single Judge added,
“…this Court would have no hesitation to hold that the University is not entitled to withhold the Viva-voce Examination results of the Students on the ground that the Colleges have not cleared the arrears due to the University. The impugned action would affect only one class, namely, the Student Community, thereby marring their careers and future prospects, which is a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt that the Writ Petitioner Colleges, as well as the University, have treated the careers and future prospects of the Students as 'Items of Merchandise' which can be traded or used for blackmail.”
Case Title: CH. UDAYA BHASKAR v. K APPA RAO PALAKONDA and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 133
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that continued employment with no reduction in income of a claimant who suffered permanent and partial disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be grounds for denying compensation under the head of 'permanent disability'.
In the present case, one Ch. Udaya Bhaskar (claimant) suffered 40% partial and permanent disability, a chewing problem and alteration in speech owing to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an APSRTC bus. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him compensation worth Rs.6,89,000/- at 7.5% per annum. Notably, no compensation was provided under the head of permanent disability as employment and income of the claimant remained unaffected despite the disability.
Interpreting the concept of 'functional disability'— which involves difficulties in performing daily chores, Justice A. Hari Haranandha Sarma explained,
“The disability contributing to loss of income is a relative aspect. Disability may not always directly affect income. But, it is not always the same as functional disability. Functional disability refers to a limitation in respect of day to day activities of a person who becomes disabled. Ability to earn is a different aspect from the disability suffered, causing inconvenience for daily routine. A person might have functional disability although same does not affect the income. A functional disability certainly contributes to loss of income in some cases, restricting someone with mobility issues, making him unable to attend all physical requirements of his job leading to a reduced income, availment of leaves, unable to do extra work having effect on promotions in the job. Factors like accommodation at a particular job, type of job and nature of disability play a role.”
Case Title: DUDEKULA SHAMEERA v. THE UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 134
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the plea of a NEET (UG) candidate (petitioner) who– owing to variations in the number of answers filled and dissimilarities between signatures in the Admit Card and OMR sheet, alleged that her OMR answer sheet was tampered with, and subsequently sought a thorough inquiry regarding the same.
Noting that dissimilarity between signatures cannot be considered a ground to hold that there was tampering of OMR answer sheet, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapti observed,
“It is relevant here to note that handwriting and signature of any person are subject to inherent inconsistencies. The physical and emotional state of person at the time of subscribing the signature plays a vital role and would contribute a lot to inconsistencies. The state of mind of the petitioner at the time of subscribing signature in exam room would definitely be anxious and stressed than at the time of subscribing the signature on Admit Card- Provisional. Therefore, variations in signatures between the Admit Card and the OMR answer sheet cannot be based as a ground to contend any tampering or swapping of answer sheets as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Case Title: P YASODA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 135
The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed fresh counselling for over 800 Village Agricultural Assistants in two districts who had questioned their mass transfer on the ground that it seemed to be influenced by recommendations of public representatives which was against the transfer policy. In doing so the court said that the manner in which orders were passed gave the impression of a parallel administration going against the set transfer policy. The petitioners claimed that while counselling options were given to them, yet the transfer orders were issued on the same date establishing that point of giving options for posting for only for name sake, and the orders were passed on recommendations of public representatives i.e. MPs/MLAs.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay in his order observed that on June 30, an order was passed by the government transferring 455 candidates from Kurnool district and 475 functionaries in Krishna district. The court noted:
"A reading of the letters issued by the public representatives would show that a number of functionaries were recommended for transfer and the letters also mention the transferred places of posting of the recommended functionaries.The number of functionaries recommended for transfer in Kurnool and Krishna Districts are exceptionally high. As regards other Districts, the numbers are not so high to the extent of vitiating the transfers...Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the transfers were effected as per the executive instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.6.2025, however, did not dispute the fact that the individuals named in the letters of public representatives are transferred coincidentally to the very same place in the two districts referred above.
Case Title: Somisetty Subbarayudu and others v. The State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 136
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of a claim or representation may result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions; however, such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice.
In this regard, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao explained,
“This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to Tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect.”
Case Title: Thandava Yogesh Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 137
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to ensure compliance to the revised guidelines on speed breakers and to bring all existing speed breaker installations on roads in conformity with the same.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,
“In case there is any new guideline issued by the concerned Ministry either in the Central Government or the Indian Road Congress, which is required to be followed, the same be followed and a circular be issued to all the concerned to not only ensure that the new guidelines are followed in letter and spirit and also to ensure the existing speed breakers are brought in conformity to the new guidelines.”
Case Title: Kuruva Kullayappa v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 138
In a case involving the tragic death of a 20 year-old boy who fell from an overcrowded train in 2006, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has modified the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, to ensure that interest on compensation awarded to the bereaved parents is calculated from the date of filing of application (2006) instead of from the date of order of the Claims Tribunal (2011).
The Railway Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation worth Rs 4,00,000/- with interest of 9% per annum payable from the date of its order, i.e. 06.04.2011.
Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed, “The Tribunal ought to have considered that the children hold significant symbolic importance for parents in terms of their generativity and hope for the future. When a child dies, the dreams may die too. This death of the future seems integral to the intensity of many parents' responses. While guilt and self-blame are common in bereavement, they are especially pronounced following the death of a child. Such a loss severely threatens the parents' role as caregivers, protectors, and mentors. The respondents/railways have not examined any witnesses or marked documents on their behalf. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the applicants are entitled to interest only from the date of the order.”
Case Title: Kummari Satyanarayana v. The State Legal Service Authority and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 139
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the termination from service of a Record Assistant (petitioner) of Mandal Legal Services Authority (MLSA), who was found guilty of lodging fake complaints with fake signatures against the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee (MLSC).
Petitioner was also accused of demanding bribe/illegal gratification, in the name of formalities, from the Field Officers of State Bank of India (SBI) for handing award copies of bank matters settled before Lok Adalats.
Upholding the punishment imposed, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadham observed,
“… this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is commensurate with the gravity of the charges, which have been made out, against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. An employee of the Court, who indulges in creating fake complaints against his superior officers and an employee who demands illegal gratification from the officials of banks, is not a person, who can be allowed to continue in service.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 140
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that assessment orders issued without the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) can only be treated as invalid and not void, and such orders continue to remain in force until explicitly set aside by a competent court.
Section 168(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which prescribes the power to issue instructions or directions, provides that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) may issue orders, instructions or directions to the central tax officers, and all such officers and persons employed in the implementation of the Act, shall observe and follow such orders, instructions or directions. Accordingly, the CBIC issued circulars mandating all documents, proceedings and communications issued by any authority under the CGST Act and Rules, to bear a DIN and any specified communication which does not bear the electronic generated DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
Against this backdrop, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed,
“The language in this provision makes it abundantly clear that the power granted under this provision is only the power to issue instructions to the taxation authorities. Such instructions would be binding on the taxation authorities. Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void. Once the orders are only invalid, they would remain in force until they are declared to be invalid by an appropriate Court or authority of appropriate jurisdiction.”
Case Title: NSL TEXTILES LIMITED v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 141
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by NSL Textiles, which sought modification of an earlier order of 2023— where the High Court had directed the State to release the sanctioned amount of Rs. 83.87 crores as industrial incentives under the Government's Industrial Investment Promotion Policies of 2005–2010 and 2010–2015.
Specifically, the petitioner company claimed that it was entitled to an amount of Rs. 131,30,28,649, instead of Rs. 83.87 crores, in addition to Rs. 45,59,72,420 payable as incentives and Rs. 190,80,15,274 payable as interest on account of delay in receipt of incentives.
As the petitioner had filed the review petition only after availing the benefit of the 2023 order and after realising the Rs. 83.87 crores, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,
“It is very unfortunate that the petitioner did not move his little finger from the date of the order, i.e. from 29.08.2023, till the amount was realised as per the order and the contempt case is closed. In fact, this Court in paras 14 and 15 specifically observed regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and eventually, while negativing the claim for interest, directed the respondents to release 83.87 crores within six weeks from the date of the said order. Insofar as the amount of Rs.44.45 crores, yet to be sanctioned, the respondents are directed to release as per the claim. Thus, the petitioner, having availed the benefit, as per the order, and, it seems, after realising the amount, resorted to filing different interlocutory applications, though there is no apparent error on the face of the record, since the limitation doesn't apply to a review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the petitioner makes it apparent.”
Case Title: VISWA HINDU PARISHAD v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 142
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to allow Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to carry out the procession of immersion of Lord Vinayaka idols through the traditional route, which was earlier altered by the State.
The traditional route, which was followed for the past two-three decades, enabled the immersion to be made in a canal via Arts College, Srikrishna Devalayam, Emmiganur Circle, Sri Anantha Mangala Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Nirmala Talkies, II Town Police Station, Srinivasa Bhavan, and Kotta Bridge in Adoni. However, the new route prescribed by the State diverted the route of the procession through a narrow 15 feet road, which was construed as an unwarranted restriction in the carrying out of the procession.
Against this backdrop, Justice Harinath N observed,
“… there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni Division, Kurnool district, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Adoni, and the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Adoni, to facilitate the petitioner in carrying out the procession of the Lord Vinayaka idols for immersion in the canal via Arts College, Srikrishna Devalayam, Emmiganur Circle, Sri Anantha Mangala Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Nirmala Talkies, II Town Police Station, Srinivasa Bhavan, and Kotta Bridge. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni Division, Kurnool district, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Adoni, and the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Adoni, shall take necessary steps to ensure peaceful procession and, if need be, deploy adequate personnel and machinery to ensure the peaceful procession and subsequent immersion. The respondents may also install cameras or record the procession to monitor the procession and keep an eye on the trouble mongers.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 143
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of document identification number doesn't render assessment orders void.
The bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam were addressing the issue where the assessee/petitioner has challenged the assessment orders passed against him. The main ground for challenge is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.
The bench looked into Section 168 of the CGST Act and opined that the power granted under this provision is only the power to issue instructions to the taxation authorities. Such instructions would be binding on the taxation authorities. Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void. Once the orders are only invalid, they would remain in force until they are declared to be invalid by an appropriate Court or authority of appropriate jurisdiction.
Case Title: NIMMALA SARADA v. THE STATE OF AP and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 144
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an order passed by the Joint Director, Insurance Medical Services (Respondent 3), who rejected compassionate appointment to the younger daughter of a deceased ESI dispensary employee on the ground that she was married and therefore was no longer dependent on her father, despite the daughter's husband being unemployed and the couple having no independent source of income.
Against this backdrop, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava observed,
“The distinction sought to be made by the respondents between a married daughter and a son fails the test of reasonableness. Further, the observation made by the respondents that once a daughter gets married, she would no longer be considered a dependent is grossly irrational.”
Noting that the reason accorded for the rejection of application was not sustainable, the Single Judge held,
“… the impugned order is set-aside and the respondents are directed to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 01.12.2021 and 08.12.2021.”
Case Title: ISLAVATH TARU NAIK v THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 145
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal actions, and a driver who commits an accident by driving rashly and negligently, which leads to the death of a person, is liable under Section 304A of IPC, even if there has been a degree of negligence on part of the victim.
For context- the Court was dealing with an appeal against the conviction of an APSRTC bus driver under Section 304A of IPC, who ran over an old lady without blowing horn or consulting the conductor before moving the bus, and pleaded that the deceased, being elderly, was herself responsible for the accident as she attempted to cross the bus negligently and suddenly, which left the petitioner no time to avoid the accident.
Upholding the conviction, the Justice Mallikarjuna Rao held,
“This Court is of the view that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal actions. Contributory negligence of the victim is no defence against a charge under 304A of the IPC. The accused will be liable even though there has been a degree of negligence on the part of the victim. A driver must anticipate reasonably foreseeable negligent acts of road users.”
Case Title: Yemu Kondal Rao v. The State Of AP and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 146
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which challenged the display of pictures and portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister in government offices across the State.
The PIL petition, filed by Yemu London Rao, was stated to "safeguard public interest” and argued that the said act of displaying the portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister violated the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissing the PIL petition, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,
“We fail to understand as to how the display of a portrait or a picture in a Government office of a Deputy Chief Minister would in any manner affect any of the rights of a citizen under the Constitution in the absence of any specific statutory prohibition on such display. The petition is clearly filed with a political motive.”
Case Title: V D MOORTHY v. THE STATE OF AP and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 147
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the power of a police officer under Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure the attendance of “any person”, is territorially restricted to persons residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station, and the power, therefore, does not extend to persons residing beyond his jurisdiction. It further added that a policeman cannot secure the presence of such a person “as a matter of right.”
Section 179(1) authorises a Police Officer to secure the presence of “any person” subject to two conditions—- (1) if such person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and, (2) if such person resides within the limits of his own Police Station or any adjoining station. However, the first proviso to Section 179(1) prescribes exceptions to the above-mentioned power and exempts a—- (i) male person under the age of 15 years or above the age of 60 years, (ii) woman irrespective of the age, (iii) mentally or physically disabled person, and (iv) person with acute illness. Further, under the second proviso, if such a person is willing to attend at the police station, he/she may be permitted so to do.
Case Title: Shaik Masthan Vali v. Kummaru Durga and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 148
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a host of appeals which were either transferred or directly filed before it after abolition of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (1982 Act) by the State vide a Government Order of 2016.
Noting that the vested right of appeal perishes when an appellate Court is abolished without constitution of an alternative Forum for disposal of pending matters or appeals, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,
“The G.O.Ms.No.420, dated 02.09.2016 to the extent of abolition of the Special Court by notification is within the powers of the State Government, but to the extent the said G.O.Ms.No.420 provided for the High Court as the Appellate Court to which the Appeals under the Act 1982 will be transferred and decided as the Appellate Court under the Act 1982, is beyond the statutory powers conferred on the State Government and to that extent, the Government Order is in transgression of the executive powers of the State and in excess of the power conferred by the Act 1982.”
Case Title: Realme Mobile Telecommunications vs State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 149
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted police protection to Realme Mobile Telecommunications for moving manufactured items from Wingtech Mobile Communications amid the protests and strikes at the latter company.
The order was passed by Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, in a writ petition filed by Realme. The court said:
“Considering the submissions made, the concerned Station House Officer is directed to look into the representation made by the petitioners and attend their cause within a couple of days by taking appropriate steps, with necessary police personnel, to ensure that the stock is lifted from the company without any untoward incident. It is further clarified that the petitioners shall bear the expenditure.”
Case Title: NAKUL CHANDRA BISWAL v. BADARU SRINIVASA RAO and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 150
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that under Rule 15A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a defaulting tenant who disputes arrears of rent is required to not only pay arrears up to the date of filing of the suit, but also the arrears accruing until the fixation of rent by the Court and thereafter.
In the present case involving a tenant defaulting in payment of rent, the Trial Court passed an award fixing the provisional rent at Rs 20,000, with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.21,10,000 as arrears of rent from 2016 to 2025, and to continue to deposit the future rent at Rs 20,000 per month.
Against this backdrop, Justice Raghunandan Rao explained that Order 15A of CPC provides for two situations— one, where the defendant, while filing his written statement, is required to deposit the undisputed arrears of rent up to the date on which the written statement is filed and the further amount as and when they become due, and; second, where the Court is required to go into the fixation of rent where the defendant pleads that no arrears of rent or default exist. The Court stated,
“Upon such determination, the defendant would be liable to deposit the rent fixed by the Court within the time stipulated by the Court and to continue to deposit the rent which becomes payable thereafter.”
Noting that the present case falls under the second eventuality, the Court added,
“In the present case, the Trial Court fixed a lump sum amount of the arrears of rent due from 2015 to 2025. Though the order may not clearly signify the contours set out in Rule 2 Order 15A, the order cannot be faulted on the ground of violation of Order 15A. This is because, Rule 2 of Order 15A casts an obligation on the petitioner/deponent to not only clear the arrears of rent due till the date of fixation of rent but to clear all such arrears of rent, which have fallen due after the date of fixation of rent.”
Case Title: M/s. Orind Special Refractories Ltd. v. M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 151
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a majority arbitral award would be deemed valid under Section 31(1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act), if the separate concurring and dissenting awards are each duly signed by their respective Arbitrators.
For reference– Section 31(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal; and Section 31(2) provides that in arbitral proceedings consisting of more than one arbitrator, signatures of the majority of all the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signatures is stated.
In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal comprised three Arbitrators where— the Presiding Arbitrator passed his award duly signed, and Co-Arbitrator-2, vide a separate award, had concurred with the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, and passed his separate signed award. Co-Arbitrator-1 passed a separate dissenting minority award. All three awards were compiled by the Presiding Arbitrator in a booklet which contained the signatures of the Arbitrators on their respective awards, and sent to the Registrar of the Indian Council of Arbitration.
Upholding the legality of the majority award, which was contested on the ground that the it was not signed by all the arbitrators, and that the reason for such omission was not provided, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,
“The award would be operative and valid being an award by majority and the majority (Presiding Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator-2) signing the award and the Co-Arbitrator-1 signing his dissent/opinion. Consequently, there would be no requirement to record the reasons for the omission, in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 31, as there is no such omission.”
Case Title: Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 152
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that, by virtue of Section 357 of CrPC, civil suits filed for damages are maintainable even when criminal proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the same incident involving the same parties.
For reference, Section 357(3) of CrPC, permits compensation to be granted to any person suffering loss or injury due to the action of the accused when no fine is imposed, and Section 357(5) provides that any subsequent civil suit must consider the compensation already awarded under the Section to avoid double benefit.
Noting that these provisions collectively empower the Court to determine compensation which victims are entitled to against the accused in civil proceedings, a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam stated,
“…we deem it appropriate to hold that, both the civil and criminal proceedings arising out of same matter is aptly maintainable. The real purport of Section 357(5) CrPC is that in the event of awarding damages by the civil Court, it must take into account of compensation granted by the criminal Court by virtue of above provision. Similarly, if the civil proceedings are disposed of prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter, then it is the duty of the criminal court to take into account the decree passed by the civil court while exercising its powers vested under Section 357 Cr.P.C."
Case Title: M SREENIVASULU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 153
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the CID to seize all records relating to an alleged scam in the Parakamani process, and has subsequently set aside a Lok Adalat proceeding which compounded the offences framed against the accused– Sri C.V. Ravi Kumar, under Sections 379 (theft) and 381 (theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master) of IPC, and acquitted him.
The Parakamani process is a traditional system followed at the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), which involves counting and handling of Hundi offerings made to the temple.
While hearing a writ petition filed by M Sreenivasulu, who demanded a CID probe into the alleged scam in Parakamani, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad directed,
“The IG, CB-CID, is directed to forthwith seize the entire record relating to F.I.R.No.24/2023 registered in Town-I Tirumala Police Station including the Proceedings before the Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat Case No.582 of 2023. The said Officer is also directed to seize the entire record from the TTD relating to the Board Resolutions, if any, and any other Proceeding made by any Official of the TTD and submit the same to the Court (properly sealed) for perusal before the next date of hearing through the Registrar (Judicial).”
Mere Pendency Of Appeal Does Not Operate As Stay On Execution Of Trial Court's Decree: AP High Court
Case Title: Pilla Venkateswara Rao Alias Allabakshu v. Kancherla Malyadri
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 154
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere pendency of appeal in a Civil Court does not operate as stay on execution of a decree passed by the Trial Court.
For context— the Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner lost a suit for eviction and filed an appeal, which was later dismissed for non-prosecution, leaving the Trial Court's decree intact. The decree holder (respondent) then filed an Execution petition, where the Execution Court issued notice to the petitioner to appear and raise objections, which the petitioner challenged in a revision petition claiming that the decree was not final.
Against this backdrop, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held,
“This Court is of the considered view that the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the impugned notice asking the petitioner to appear in the execution case and to file the objections, if any, fixing a date and time is not maintainable. It is not a case decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court. There is also no jurisdictional error in issuing notice. The petitioner instead of approaching this Court should have approached the Execution Court pursuant to the notice and must have been duly advised by his counsel.”
Case Title: Guduri Rajani v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 155
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a 2022 seniority list which made a category of District Judges junior to another category from the same recruitment process, on the grounds that the date of appointment were different.
For context— the dispute arose after the State, in 2022, citing different dates of appointment under 10% accelerated and 65% promotion quotas, altered a 2017 seniority list that was prepared using the mandatory 40-point roster. The list so altered effectively placed the petitioner District Judges below the respondents on the ground that the date of appointment determines seniority.
The Court referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007 (2007 Rules) which prescribe the method of recruitment and other conditions of service of District Judges, Senior Civil Judges, and Junior Civil Judges. Rule 13(a) prescribes seniority of a person appointed to the category of District Judges by direct recruitment as well as by transfer that it shall be fixed as per 40 point roster prescribed in Schedule-A. Further, Rule 13(b) provides for seniority of persons appointed to the category of Civil Judges by direct recruitment of transfer which shall be fixed as per 20 point roster prescribed in Schedule-B of the Rules.
Case Title: BALAM RAMANAMMA V. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 156
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasised that the culmination of acquisition of a private property lies not in the payment of compensation, but in actual physical possession of land, and further that the State authorities must adhere to due process while acquiring such private land.
While dealing with an issue where land acquisition was being conducted by State authorities in Vizianagaram District without proper notification— the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs Bimal Kumar Shah [(2024) 10 SCC 533], where the Court enlisted the seven basic rights of private citizens which constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A”, which the State is expected to respect before depriving citizens of their private property. These principles include— (i) right to notice, (ii) right to be heard, (iii) right to a reasoned decision, (iv) duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) right to efficient and expeditious process, and (vii) right to conclusion.
Case Title: ZION SHIPPING LTD v. SARALA FOODS PVT LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 157
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant interim relief for attachment of goods and security under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the liquidated damages in the form of demurrage does not constitute debt until the liability is determined by an arbitral award.
Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that “petitioner has moved the present petition nearly after three years, therefore, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, if the applicant has not applied for relief with reasonable expedition, the relief of order of attachment should not be granted in a routine and mechanical way merely for asking. Had the petitioner been diligent and serious about asserting the claim, nothing prevented or stopped it from initiating appropriate legal proceedings at the earliest point of time rather than choosing to wait for such a long period. This conduct even raises serious doubts about the bonafides of petitioner in making eleventh hour attempt of securing attachment even without initiating any legal steps for recovery.”
Case Title: Gummadi Usha Rani & another v. Guduru Venkateswara Rao and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 158
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court order which rejected a suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and disclosed no new cause of action. In doing so the high court said that the trial court had rejected the case without "meaningfully" reading the plaint as a whole.
The reason attributed by the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint was that the documents relating to a particular schedule property were registered and their registration operated as notice to the whole world. The trial court had further reasoned that the plaint was barred by limitation and the plaintiffs had not filed any suit within the period prescribed to challenge the registered documents. The trial court had also concluded that no fresh cause of action arose, especially after the dismissal of an earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs, and that through the suit, the plaintiffs had created an illusion of a cause of action with clever pleadings while ignoring their failure to initiate the suit within a reasonable period of limitation.
Case Title: Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao (died) and others v. Kampa Bhaskara Rao and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 159
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement (GPA/SA) does not confer any title or ownership in an immovable property and cannot be used to defeat a decree for specific performance where a prior sale agreement had culminated in a Court decree and delivery of possession.
While dealing with a case where the appellants claimed ownership over a suit schedule property based on a GPA/SA of 2007, which was made after the Respondent 1/plaintiff's earlier valid sale agreement of 2006, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,
“… we hold that the Special General Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2007 in favour of the 1st appellant does not confer or create any right, title and interest in favour of the 1st appellant, nor based thereon the lease in favour of the 2nd appellant by the 1st appellant confers any right to the 2nd appellant, so as to object to the execution of the decree in favour of the 1st respondent/decree holder for delivery of possession of the E.P.schedule property or to resist/obstruct delivery of possession.”
Case Title: BOYA KISTAMMA v. BOYA SURI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 160
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that Trial Courts, while granting an order of status-quo, must refrain from adopting a “short-cut method” where the status of parties is not determined, as such orders create “doubt and ambiguity”, and instead, the order must state, in unequivocal terms, what the status-quo is.
While dealing with a case where the Trial Court modified an ad-interim injunction into an order of status quo without recording who was in possession of the suit property, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,
“… trial courts developed a tendency to take a short-cut method of granting status quo without determining the status of the parties. While ordering Status-Quo, the court must state in unequivocal terms what the Status-Quo is. The Court must state whether the Plaintiff or the defendant is in possession. Granting the order of status quo without recording the possession, in the considered opinion of this court, would leave the matter in doubt and ambiguity, and it would result in dangerous consequences. It is desirable and appropriate that when the court intends to pass an order of status quo concerning the possession, the court must record a finding as to who is in possession of the property. If the court is convinced, based upon the material, regarding prima facie possession of the plaintiff, the status quo regarding possession of the suit property shall continue till further order or disposal of the suit. But a finding to that effect must be recorded.”
Case Title: Dr. Mudunuri Ravi Kiran vs. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 161
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that in an accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act the insurance company is a necessary and property party, however in a compensation claim for medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act the insurance company is not a necessary party.
The petitioner had claimed that under MV Act, in claim petitions filed for compensation either due to death or injury, the insurance company is made a party. So applying the same principle, in the cases of compensation for the medical negligence also, the insurance company would be necessary party or at least a proper party to be impleaded. Rejecting the contention, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan noted that while the MV Act, mandates involvement of the insurance company, no such mandate can be found in the Consumer Protection Act, and there is no privity of contract between a consumer and the insurance company.
Case Title: G. Ram Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 162
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that even if a part of an industrial unit which has functional integrity with other units is shut down, such action amounts to closure and workmen shall be entitled to compensation as provided under Section 25FFF Industrial Disputes Act.
The court said thus while dismissing a workman's plea seeking absorption into other units of a Corporation, after he was retrenched when the unit where the workman was working was shut down.
Case Title: Chittiboyina Bharata Rao v. The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 163
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that financial incapacity cannot be used as a defence by the State institutions for non-fulfilment of statutory obligation to provide terminal benefits to its employees, and shirking of the responsibility to release the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court was dealing with a case where terminal benefits were denied to retired employees of Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (DCCB) (Respondent 1)— an institution falling within the ambit of “State” under Article 12, on the grounds that Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS)-(Respondent 3)— to which the petitioners were initially deputed, expressed financial incapacity to release its contributory share.
Case Title: Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 164
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed a dire need for the State to mainstream the transgender community— which lie at the “bottom of social backwardness", and to subsequently take affirmative action for their inclusion in all spheres of life, including public employment.
In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay stated,
“As the origin of the problems of transgender persons in India lies in stigma and discrimination they face in family and society, resulting in their exclusion from the socio-economic-cultural-political spectrum, there is a dire need to mainstream them and the adoption of an inclusive approach in all spheres of life including affirmative action by the State in public employment. The purpose of carving out an exception to the right of equal opportunity in employment by the introduction of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India is only to ensure that socially and economically backward communities are also allowed to come into the forefront of society and ensure intergenerational equality. The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward, but has also been abandoned by society. In these circumstances, the State has a moral obligation under the Constitution to take affirmative action on behalf of such communities.”
Case Title: V. Maheswari and others v. S. Bhaskarachari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 165
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a Trial Court order, which dismissed a petition filed under Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC seeking permission for the plaintiffs to reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence after the defendants concluded their evidence in a partition suit involving a registered partition deed of 2002, which also stood challenged by the plaintiffs in the original suit.
Justice B.S. Bhanumathi held,
“A perusal of the issues shows that the initial burden of establishing all these issues lies on the plaintiffs alone. It is not a case of a normal partition suit wherein, if the plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property is joint family property and the defendants take a plea that the property was already partitioned, the burden may lie on the party pleading earlier partition. Whereas, in the present case, the plaintiffs already admitted that there is a registered partition deed, dated 28.02.2022, and seek declaration of the same as null and void. Therefore, they cannot throw the burden of proving any of the issues on the defendants. Order XVIII Rule 3 applies where the burden lies on one party with regard to some issues and the other party with regard to other issues, which is not the case on hand.”
Case Title: Raja Reddy and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 166
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has condemned the State authorities (respondents) for concocting “innovative ways” of acquiring the property of one Raja Reddy (petitioner), despite the Court earlier directing the authorities to not dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.
Justice Harinath N held,
“… it is evident that the respondent authorities are devising innovative methods for taking over the property of the petitioner without following the law of the land. This Court made it amply clear to the respondent authorities, while disposing of W.P. No. 29001 of 2025, that they must invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Unmindful of these directions, the issuance of the present notice calling upon the petitioner to remove a building which does not exist speaks volumes of the manner in which the respondent authorities are discharging their official duties.”
'Vindictive': AP High Court Raps State For Withholding Occupancy Certificate Of YSRCP Party Office
Case Title: YUVAJANA SHRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY(YSRCP) v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 167
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has strongly criticised the State authorities (respondents) for denying occupancy certificate for a building constructed for use as party office by the petitioners, who were members of YSRCP, despite the building being fit for occupation.
Noting that State authorities are duty-bound to issue occupancy certificate for the building once it is fit for occupation, Justice Harinath N observed,
“The duty of the respondents is to process the grant of occupancy certificate for the petitioners building in a routine and standard manner. The inaction on part of the respondents in following the routine and standard approach clearly implies the external pressure and influence on them. There is no justification for the acts of the respondent authorities in denying the occupancy certificate without any justifiable cause.”
Case Title: Krishnamsetty Praneetha V. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 168
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of a MBBS candidate— who was placed lower in the priority list (at No.91) for admission to the course for the 2025-26 session, and had approached the Court asserting that she ought to have been placed higher on the list (at No.53) on account of her participation in the Senior National Fencing Championship, 2024-25.
The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 3) had argued that the petitioner's participation in the Senior Nationals was not considered because the Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 6)— which conducted the State-Level Championship and issued a backup certificate for the petitioner's participation, had failed to renew its recognition for the year 2024-25. Consequently, the backup certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the (then de-recognised) Association, reflecting her participation in the State-Level Championship, could not be considered to be in order.
Case Title: V CHENCHAIAH NAIDU v. THE STATE OF AP and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 169
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed an appeal of an ex-serviceman, who sought to sell land assigned to him under the ex-servicemen quota but was denied by the District Collector (DC) on the ground that the allotment was made while the appellant was serving in the Indian Army and was thus purportedly irregular.
Referring to a 2022 Circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, which permitted applications for assignment of land to be made by serving soldiers also, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Subhendu Samanta held,
“This Court had not been shown any provision of law nor has any material been placed before this Court, to support the contention that only Ex-Servicemen can be assigned land under the Ex-Servicemen quota and no serving member of the Armed forces can be assigned land. Further, the circular of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, referred to, by the learned counsel for the appellant, clearly provides for assignment of the land to the serving members of the armed forces. In such a situation, the lands assigned to serving members of the Armed Forces, cannot be resumed nor can such an assignment be treated as illegal or irregular.”
Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAJOLA JAGANNADHA REDDY AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 170
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that in our society, land is loved like mothers, and the acquisition of land by the Government for public purposes upon an executive promise of compassionate employment to displaced persons or their family members makes the Government duty-bound to fulfil the same within reasonable time and without raising technicalities on flimsy grounds.
A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma explained that while compassionate appointment for land displaced persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right, a Government scheme specifically formulated for rehabilitation and employment of a member of the uprooted family to ensure social security binds the State to implement the same in true letter and spirit.
Case Title: NAGIREDDI SATISH KUMAR and ors. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 171
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and the Police has to examine, with due care, whether the crime registered against an accused comes within the purview of disturbing peace and tranquility.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Vankata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,
“…rowdy sheet cannot be opened mechanically and not in a casual manner. In opening a rowdy sheet it is essential that, due care has to be taken by the Respondent Police and, every year the committee has to review whether the rowdy sheet has to be continued or not. The other aspect that has to be seen by the Respondent Police is whether the crimes which are registered against the Accused would come within the purview of disturbing the public peace and tranquility at large.”
Case Title: The Director General, CISF & Ors. vs. Kudipudi Suri Babu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 172
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes grave misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, justifying penalties such as compulsory retirement for members of disciplined forces.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Annual Schedule For LLB Admissions To Curb Delays
Case Title: Thandava Yogesh v State of AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 173
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to streamline the admission for law courses from 2026, noting that delay in the process has an adverse effect on the academic curriculum of candidates.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan passed the order in a PIL filed by Thandava Yogesh.
“We are convinced that the Council cannot delay the process of completing the admission in various law colleges in the State which does have an adverse effect on the academic curriculum of candidates and therefore we feel that time limits have to be prescribed for initiating and completing the entire admission process so that by a fixed date the colleges can start their academic curriculum,” the Court said.
Case Number: CC 3926 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 174
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that rightness or wrongness of an order cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. The court further held that if the impugned order is contrary to law, then the contemnor is at liberty to challenge the order by way of a review or appeal.
“Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, it cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible,” said Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda.
Case Title: Yelduti Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 175
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by employees of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation (Respondent-Corporation) seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years in terms of a Government Order of 2022.
The petitioners sought continuation of service on the ground that a Committee was constituted in 2025 for examining— (i) the feasibility of enhancement of the superannuation age to 62 years for employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations included in IXth and Xth Schedules of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, and, (ii) the Government's decision rejecting enhancement of age of superannuation.
Case Title: JAYAMANGALA VENKATA RAMANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 176
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the Chairman of the State Legislative Council is not insulated with any constitutional immunity nor vested with absolute discretion to indefinitely sit on a resignation submitted by a Member, and its role is limited to determining, within a “reasonable time”, whether such resignation was tendered voluntarily.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Jaymangala Venkata Ramana— an elected Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council, who assumed office from 23.03.2023, and tendered his resignation on 23.11.2024. However, the Chairman of the Council did not act on the resignation and such inaction compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition.
The Court referred to Article 190(3) of the Constitution— which governs resignations tendered to the Chairman, the Proviso of which was added by the Constitution (Thirty-third) Amendment Act, 1974, to authorise the Chairman to conduct inquiry into the voluntariness of the resignation, and reject the same if the Chairman is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine. Reference was also made to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council (“Council Rules”) which stipulates that when a Member tenders his resignation personally and informs the Chairman during personal interaction that the resignation is voluntary and genuine and if the Chairman has no information or knowledge to the contrary, the Chairman may accept the resignation immediately.
Case Title: Indubaala Enterprises LLP v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 177
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stands deemed withdrawn once the registered dealer files the pending returns along with payment of tax and applicable late fee, even if such returns are filed beyond the initially prescribed period.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee, Indubaala Enterprises LLP, assailing multiple assessment orders on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.
Case Title: Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna Parasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 178
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of a Proddatur shop owner for selling and possessing pirated audio cassettes, directing him to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence.
Justice Subhendu Samanta, in an order passed on December 3, 2025, upheld the findings of the trial court and the Sessions Court, which had found the man guilty under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court held that no ground was made out in the criminal revision to disturb the earlier conclusions.
Case Title: SHAKEEL PASHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 179
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld an order of a single judge bench which had dismissed a 2016 writ petition challenging a 1996 cancellation of land assignment— noting that the challenge was made after an unexplained delay of 20 years.
The appellant had purchased a parcel of land in 1990. However, in 1996, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent 3) had cancelled the assignment, resumed the land to the government– allegedly without the knowledge of the appellant, changed the nature of the land, and gave the same in lease to one M/s Lakshmi Granites.
Case Title: M/s. JBD Educationals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 180
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that mere passing of an order for refund within the statutory period of 90 days, without actual disbursement of the amount within the said period, does not suffice to avoid liability to pay interest as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax (APVAT) Act, 2005 and the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005, as the law mandates that refund must actually be effected within the statutory period to avoid liability of interest.
For reference– as per Section 38 of the APVAT Act r/w Rule 35(8) of the APVAT Rules, 2005– where the VAT dealer has produced accounts within the prescribed time limit, interest shall be payable at the rate of 1.25% per month from the date after the expiry of the ninety days on a claim made on VAT return, till the date of actual refund. The liability for payment of interest arises from the date after the expiry of 90 days till the date of actual refund.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samata was dealing with writ petition seeking payment of interest on a belated refund amounting to Rs.1,27,34,194/-. While the refund claim pertained to the tax period between April, 2013 and March, 2016 and was approved by the Joint Commissioner CT Audit and Refunds (Respondent 3) in June, 2020, the actual refund was credited in March 2022– which was well beyond the prescribed time limit of 90 days.
Case Title: NG PAPA RAO v THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 181
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while reiterating that right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21, has granted relief to a retired Revenue Officer whose proposal for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred towards the treatment of his deceased wife was returned by the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 1).
Respondent 1 had returned the proposal for sanction of Rs. 96,424 by relying on a Government Order of 2011 whereby instructions were issued to promote fiscal discipline and clause (iv) of the GO put an embargo on granting permissions for the relaxation of rules that involved putting additional burden on the State Exchequer— like payment of medical bills.
Emphasising that the Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities under Article 39(e) of the Constitution, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that the right to health and medical care to protect the health of a citizen while in service or post-retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Article 39(e) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/s Ushabala Chits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 182
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that interest and penalty collected by chit fund companies from defaulting subscribers for delayed payment of instalments are not taxable under GST.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether the interest/penalty collected for the delay in payment of the monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST.
In the case at hand, the petitioner was a chit fund company engaged in the business of running chit schemes. The conduct of chits is regulated by the Chit Fund Act, read with the Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Rules, 2008.
Case Title: M SREENIVASULU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 183
The Andhra Pradesh High Court given a slew of suggestions to reform archaic methods and outdated procedures in the Hundi processing system at Tirumala Tirupati, through use of technology, digitisation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), with a view to prevent recurring instances of theft, pilferage and misappropriation of Hundies (offerings).
While dealing with the issue of alleged theft in the Parakamani process, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed that the same has affected the sentiments of devotees across the world and that archaic methods and procedures are required to be done away with in order to prevent any further instances of theft, pilferage, etc.
Case Title: K.Suresh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 184
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that elections to the post of Mayor–including election to fill a casual vacancy is an 'indirect election', and the embargo under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act would not apply to elections held at the end of term to fill this post.
The State Election Commission (Respondent 2) had issued a notification on 04.12.2025 directing the Election Authority and Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration (Respondent 3) to authorise the Collector, District Election Authority of Kadapa (Respondent 4) to conduct Mayor elections of Kadapa Municipal Corporation to fill up casual vacancy to the office of the Mayor, even though, the ordinary election of members was scheduled to be conducted on or before February, 2026. As against this, a writ petition was filed by the last Mayor of the Corporation (petitioner) seeking to declare the said Notification as arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.