[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31]NOMINAL INDEXSEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 18KALIKIRI KRANTHI CHAITHANYA ALIAS KRANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 19THOTA VENKATADRI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and...
[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31]
NOMINAL INDEX
SEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17
Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 18
KALIKIRI KRANTHI CHAITHANYA ALIAS KRANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 19
THOTA VENKATADRI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and batch: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 20
Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. The Union of India and others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 21
SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22
SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23
GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24
Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25
NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26
G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27
ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28
Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29
Dr. P. Nagaraju v. Rayalaseema University: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 30
CHINNAN KRISHORE KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31
FINAL ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
S.311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Can Be Exercised Even After Case Reserved For Judgment: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8982/2024
Case Title: SEELAM NAGAMUNI NAIDU and Ors v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that where neither party seeks to examine a witness whose evidence the Court considers necessary to arrive at a just decision, then the Court can invoke its power to recall or re-examine the witness at any stage of the trial, as contemplated under Section 311 of CrPC r/w Section 165 of Evidence Act, and such power can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including when the matter is reserved for judgment.
“… every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery of truth. The Court is not a mere spectator and is duty-bound to ensure that all material evidence necessary for a just decision is brought on record. The Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act are wide and can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including at the stage when the matter is reserved for judgment.”
“Can't Cry Foul After Engaging Services”: AP High Court Reprimands State For Withholding Contractor's Dues Citing Financial Crunch
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 34418 OF 2025
Case Title: Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reprimanded the Naidupeta Municipality authorities (Respondent 3) for withholding payments due to a contractor (petitioner) against completion of public works on account of financial constraints, observing that the Municipality cannot employ the services of third parties and then evade payment obligations on the pretext of financial hardship. The Municipality had engaged the petitioner for construction purposes, however, bills amounting to Rs.7,89,724 towards the completion of the projects remained unpaid. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the respondents' failure in releasing the payment was illegal, malafide, and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
While the State expressed financial incapacity to clear the due amount, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,
“… this Court is constrained to observe that it is rather dismayed with regard to the response given by the Commissioner that the Financial condition of the Municipality is very critical and unable to pay the monthly wages etc.,. If the Municipality is in such critical financial constraints, this Court is unable to countenance as to why the Municipality has undertaken this kind of work and got it executed by undertaking the services and financial resources of third parties like that of the Writ Petitioner and then cry foul as regards the financial crunch.”
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 512/2026
Case Title: KALIKIRI KRANTHI CHAITHANYA ALIAS KRANTHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 19
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday granted regular bail to a 60-year-old practising advocate and senior leader of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLP) accused of displaying banners where the National Emblem was morphed and the motto "Satyameva Jayate" was altered to "Satyameva Parajayate".
A bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed that nothing remains to be seized from him and that no necessity was shown for his further custodial interrogation. While granting him the relief, the Court also took note of the stage of investigation, the age and status of the Petitioner and the absence of any specific material justifying continued custody.
Decades Of Possession Doesn't Create Ownership Or Compensation Rights On Encroached Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos.16316 of 2021 and batch; CC. 4939 of 2023
Case Title: THOTA VENKATADRI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 20
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that illegal encroachers of Government land cannot claim compensation and invoke the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, despite acquiring the land from their ancestors or having possession of the same for decades.
Justice Harinath N held,
“An encroacher of Government land would remain an encroacher, regardless of whether the encroacher has been in possession of the encroached land for decades. The possession of the said property by the encroacher is neither permissive possession nor legalised. The said possession of land would have to be considered illegal, and illegal encroachers cannot claim equities for the grant of compensation on par with the landowners having valid title and ownership documents. The encroachers of any Government land cannot claim any right, title, interest, lien or any vested interest without regularisation of their encroachment or the Government issuing any pattas in their favour or any other legally valid document which would regularise their encroachment.”
Look Out Circulars Affect Career, Personal Liberty; Meant For Exceptional Cases, Not Routine Matrimonial Disputes: AP High Court
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.2269 OF 2026
Case Title: Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 21
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently took note of the common trend of the state police of opening Look Out Circulars (LOCs) in a 'mechanical' manner against persons implicated in cases under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 BNS).
The Court emphasized that such circulars, which curtail personal liberty, are meant for exceptional cases involving grave offences or threats to national security, not for routine disputes under Section 498-A IPC. The Court noted that the offence u/s 498A IPC is not so grave, and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening a LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.
"These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected", the bench stressed.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025
Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that attestation of vakalatnana is not a mere formality, but a mandatory safeguard to ensure genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti lamented the increasing instances of petitioners denying to sign a vakalat, which constitutes “unholy litigation” that not only demoralises the confidence of advocates, but also creates obstacles in the “noble profession”, and embarrasses the legal fraternity. Emphasising that an advocate derives authority only though a valid vakalat, the Single-Judge observed,
Attestation of a Vakalatnama is not a mere procedural formality; however, it is a mandatory safeguard to ensure the genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. It assures the Court that the litigant has consciously and validly conferred authority on the advocate to act and plead on his behalf, thereby preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In other words, the attestation of a vakalat, by the competent authority, protects advocates from the unholy claim by a litigant at a later point in time vis-à-vis denial of signature. It also protects the interests of litigants regarding the scope and authority conferred by them on the advocate. At the same time, the due attestation also assists the Courts in the administration of justice qua the recognised agents.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025
Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that banks/bunds of tanks constitute an integral part of a water body, which need to be strengthened from time to time, and any encroachment or construction on the same violates the Public Trust Doctrine.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti explained that Public Trust Doctrine postulates that certain natural resources— which are held by the State in trust for public benefit— cannot be transferred, alienated or permitted to be used in a manner that undermines public interest, and the State must sustain these resources for the present and future generations. Noting that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution casts a fundamental duty on citizens to protect natural resources, the Single Judge explained:
“The banks of the Vagu need to be strengthened from time to time. Unless the banks are strengthened, it endangers the lives of the people in the vicinity during the floods or whenever there is an overflow of the water due to certain climatic conditions. The water bodies, beds, bunds and banks cannot be alienated, encroached upon or diverted for private or non-public purposes. The banks/bunds of tanks are an integral part of the water body. Any encroachment, construction or regularisation on the tank banks violates the Public Trust Doctrine.”
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2075, 2076 and 2077 of 2022
Case Title: GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has explained that while the insistence on explaining day-to-day delay is to tackle pendency of cases in Trial Courts and to contain litigants who seek to unnecessarily protract litigation, Trial Courts are nonetheless expected to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach while considering applications seeking condonation of delay.
Justice Harinath N observed,
“In a suit for partition, it is in the interest of all parties that the lis is adjudicated on merits. As rightly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no party would ordinarily intend to file an application to bring legal representatives on record at a belated stage with the sole object of delaying or protracting the proceedings. The concept of explaining the day-to-day delay had evolved keeping in view the pendency in the trial Courts and the tendency of certain litigants to protract litigation by filing applications with inordinate and unexplained delay. While considering an application for condonation of delay, the learned Senior Civil Judge is required to take into account the nature of the lis and the conduct of the parties.”
PIL Not Meant For Firms Or Contractors: AP High Court Dismisses PIL On AP TRANSCO Tender Conditions
Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 239 of 2025
Case Title: Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an Advocate challenging the tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO), holding that the petitioner sought to espouse the cause of firms, contractors, and companies, and not of persons who are economically challenged.
The petitioner questioned four tender notifications and purchase orders relating to supply, laying and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables relating to transmission infrastructure in Guntur, and alleged that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive and tailored to favour select private bidders, and thereby violative of Fundamental Rights of the Company under Article 19(1)(g), and detrimental to Public Exchequer and fair competition. Reiterating that Courts have to be cautious about litigation not being misused in the name of public interest, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,
“… the present petition has been filed to espouse cause not of persons who are downtrodden, or belong to an economically weaker section of the society, who are incapable of approaching the Courts for protecting their rights or challenging the action of the State, rather, the petitioner seeks to espouse the cause of a firms/contractors/companies, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either marginalized or suffer an economic handicap and cannot take resort to the remedies which are otherwise available to them in law. If such is the case, this Court fails to understand as to how the PIL is maintainable.”
Case Number: TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 36/2025
Case Title: NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a wife's plea to transfer the divorce case initiated by her husband, from Repalle, Guntur District to Ongole, Prakasam District, holding that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife must be prioritised.
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held,
“I am of the considered view that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District.”
Case Number: W.P. NO. 30497 of 2025
Case Title: G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed concern over the "elephantine" pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which not only adversely impacts the Court, but also causes mental agony to the delinquents, thereby, directly affecting the right to a dignified life under Article 21.
In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed,
“… the number of pendency of disciplinary cases is staggering and such a pendency has a huge judicial impact on this Court on account of writ petitions seeking reliefs for promotion without reference to charge memo, restoration of seniority, retrospective promotions, quashing of disciplinary enquiry for delay, retirement benefits, consequential contempt cases etc. Apart from the judicial impact, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony on the employees on account of delayed conclusion of the disciplinary enquiries, majority of retirement benefits being subject to the outcome of disciplinary enquiries, they have direct impact on the right of retired employee to lead a dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21”
Case Number: W.P. NOs: 24508 and 22832 of 2025
Case Title: ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside re-appointment of the Director of State's Animal Husbandry Department— (Respondent 4), whose services were reinstated by the State in contravention to the statutory rules, and beyond the age of superannuation, holding that statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions nor give the right to an employer to bypass the prescribed procedure.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,
“The first fundamental to be appreciated in relation to public employment is that every aspect is governed by statutory rules. These statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions or give a right to the employer to bypass the procedure prescribed under the Rules. When a statutory rule contemplates appointment only by way of promotion from the cadre of Additional Director of Animal Husbandry, no other procedure can be adopted for appointment by the Government, as that would run contrary to the statutory rules governing the appointment to the post.”
Case Number: W.P.Nos.: 23243 and 23487 of 2025
Case Title: Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted relief to several teachers whose marks made them eligible for the post of School Assistant (SA), but were allotted the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), solely on the ground that they had exercised preference for the latter post in their online applications, holding that merit-cum-roster must be the governing criterion for recruitment and initial preference cannot override claim of more meritorious candidates for appointment to higher posts.
Noting that teachers shape the future of citizenry, and any dilution in quality or selection of less meritorious candidates is not in the interest of the future society, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed,
"Ideally, the order of preference should be sought after the results so that the candidate is better informed. At the time of application, no individual can be sure of the marks and rank to be secured in the examination. An uninformed preference can never be a ground to restrain a candidate from making an informed preference. The binding nature of a provision on the candidate is only when the preference is conscious and on an informed basis, notwithstanding the language employed in the provision.”
“Another way of examining this is that, fundamentally, public employment is also a contract, but is governed by Statutes and Rules, which are akin to covenants in a private employment agreement. In that context, offer and acceptance/rejection are the basic requirements for a person to be appointed or refused employment when selected. In these cases, there is no offer of appointment after being shortlisted for selection and the rejection of the Petitioners based on priority/preferences at the time of application has no foundation in any legally recognised principles” the Court added.
Case Number: W.P.No.21904 of 2017
Case Title: Dr. P. Nagaraju v. Rayalaseema University
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 30
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that frequent engagement and disengagement of Assistant Professors (APs) on adhoc basis disrupts academic planning and directly impairs the quality of education imparted to students, who are the ultimate stakeholders in the educational process.
While dealing with a case where the petitioner— an Assistant Professor with over a decade of continuous service at Rayalaseema University (Respondent 1) challenged a circular of 2017 which sought to replace him with another contractual appointee without undertaking regular recruitment, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam explained that adhoc teachers, who discharge duties identical to those of regular faculty against sanctioned posts, cannot be treated as “disposable resources, subjected to recurring insecurity of tenure and livelihood.”
“Such a system not only undermines the dignity of labour and the right to livelihood but also erodes institutional memory and academic excellence. Our Indian Constitution mandates under Articles 14, 21 and 21- A that the State and its instrumentalities have to balance the right of students to quality and stable education with fair, non-arbitrary employment practices, ensuring that temporary arrangements do not become a permanent mode of administration at the cost of both educational standards and human dignity”, the Court added.
Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1009 of 2022
Case Title: CHINNAN KRISHORE KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 31
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the obligation of providing maintenance is absolute, and cannot be evaded on the pretext of unemployment, financial constraints, or pendency of other proceedings, and that the jurisprudential foundation of maintenance rests upon the principle that a wife, minor children, and dependent parents are entitled to sustenance commensurate with the status and means of the person legally bound to maintain them.
Noting that right to maintenance is not a “one-time bounty” but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement, crystallising afresh upon each breach of obligation, untrammelled by the pendency of collateral matrimonial proceedings, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held,
“Maintenance, in the contemplation of Indian jurisprudence, is a socio‑legal obligation flowing inexorably from the status of marriage and the familial bond. It is not a mere contractual arrangement, but a personal liability imposed upon the husband, and in certain circumstances upon children, by virtue of the jural relationship itself. The statutory recognition of this duty under Section 125 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' as well as under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, underscores its character as a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy.”