[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1-2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16]NOMINAL INDEXGanpati Ispat v. Union of India: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1 M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 2M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 3P RASHIDULLA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.:...
[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1-2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16]
NOMINAL INDEX
Ganpati Ispat v. Union of India: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1
M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 2
M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 3
P RASHIDULLA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 4
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.J.Narasimhulu: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 5
T Bali Reddy (Died) & Ors v. Prl Secretary Revenue Dept & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 6
Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 7
P.PRIYAVARDHANA BABU v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 8
Kanduru Chinnappanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 9
Andhra Lawyers Association and Ors V. The Bar Council of India and another: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 10
Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 11
D.VENKATESWARAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 12
Atlapakala Rama Krishna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 13
A. SRIRANGAM DORA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 14
GUMMADI USHA RANI v. SURE MALLIKARJUNA RAO: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 15
V.Rabbani Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Ganpati Ispat v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 31263/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a notification merely defining or fixing the territorial jurisdiction of officers cannot be construed as conferring the power to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.
Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is the primary provision defining various GST-related offences and the specific monetary penalties applicable to them.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 conferred power on any authority or officer to initiate or conduct proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8798 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 2
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on account of delay in filing the Form 10-B Audit Report when such delay was caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the assessee is a religious and charitable society and has to comply with the instructions issued by the Income Tax Department through their letter. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the assessee could not attend the letter issued by the Department and the documents sought by the Department were not furnished within the stipulated time.
Case Title: M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)
Case Number: C.M.A. No. 234 of 2025 & batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 3
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors.
On 31st December 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that “the question of application of the clause for liquidated damages, without modification, would not arise”.
Case Title: P RASHIDULLA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10465 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 4
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasised that theft of property worth below ₹5,000 is a non-cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the police authorities cannot register an FIR with respect to the same without the Magistrate's prior permission.
In this regard, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa stated,
“There is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.”
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.J.Narasimhulu
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NOS: 17491 OF 2017 and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 5
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that an employee transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another is not entitled to carry forward his seniority from the previous unit, and his seniority must be fixed with reference to the date of his joining duty in the later unit in terms of Rule 35(b) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
For reference— Rule 35(b) of the 1996 Rules mandates that when an employee is transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another, his seniority shall be fixed with reference to the date of his joining duty in the later unit.
A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela explained,
“…the legal position is very much clear from Clause (b) of Rule 35 that when an employee was transferred on his own request and not on administrative grounds then his seniority is to be fixed from the date of his appointment in the later unit. So, his seniority in the previous unit is not protected and he has to be placed below the line in the seniority of the regular candidates who are working in the later unit.”
The Division Bench added,
“The obvious reason, the rationale and the object behind Clause (b) of Rule 35 is not to cause any loss or prejudice to the regular employees who are already working in the later unit whose seniority has been fixed at the time of their initial appointment in the said unit. The employees, who are transferred to the said units on their request, cannot disturb the seniority of the regular candidates working in the said unit which is in existence from the time of their initial appointment. Therefore, with the said avowed object Clause (b) of Rule 35 has been incorporated in the Rules to protect the seniority of the regular candidates working in those units and not to cause any prejudice to their service conditions and affect their rights to which they are legally entitled as per the service conditions.”
Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Revenue Order Allowing Land Record Changes After 71 Years
Case Title: T Bali Reddy (Died) & Ors v. Prl Secretary Revenue Dept & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34878 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that land revenue records cannot be reopened on the basis of a claim raised after a delay of 71 years. The court set aside a 2017 order of the Joint Collector that directed changes to long-standing entries.
A single-judge bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao said revisional powers are not open-ended. Even where no limitation period is prescribed, authorities must act within a reasonable time.
Quoting Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs.Chilla Ramarao & Ors, the court said that such revisional power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
Case Title: Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 26352
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 7
The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has held that tax authorities cannot recover unpaid taxes under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, from directors of the company unless they first clearly spell out the negligence or breach of duty alleged against them.
A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T. C. D. Sekhar clarified the scope of Section 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
The court said that while the provision does allow directors of a private company in liquidation to be made personally liable, the burden on directors does not arise automatically.
The bench observed, “…this condition would have to be understood to mean that there is an initial responsibility on the tax authorities to indicate the nature of such gross negligence, misfeasance, or breach of duty. It is only upon such an indication being given that the duty of demonstrating that there was no such gross negligence, misfeasance, or breach of duty on the part of the directors, would fall upon the directors of such a private limited company in liquidation.”
Case Title: P.PRIYAVARDHANA BABU v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 38268 of 2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 8
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an administrative decision by which an employee is granted a benefit or a status becomes vested when such a grant is acted upon and the same cannot be nullified by subsequent administrative modification or withdrawal of policy.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti explained,
“Once an employee is granted a benefit or status pursuant to a valid administrative decision and such a grant is acted upon, the right so created crystallises and becomes vested. A vested right cannot be divested or nullified by a subsequent administrative modification, withdrawal of policy, or reconsideration by the employer. While the employer may have the authority to revise or rescind administrative decisions, such power is inherently prospective and cannot be exercised to unsettle completed transactions or to retrospectively deprive an employee of rights already accrued.”
Case Title: Kanduru Chinnappanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12357/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 9
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied bail to a public servant booked in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) adulterated ghee case, for allegedly demanding commission from ghee suppliers, influencing tender processes and amassing disproportionate assets through suspected hawala routes.
The FIR was lodged over allegations on use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in its order said:
"During the Investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner received huge amounts towards bribe from the representatives of ghee supplies. There are several transactions including huge cash deposits in his accounts maintained at State Bank of India andUnion Bank of India. Though his salary during the entire period was around Rs.65 lakhs, there are transactions amounting to about Rs.4.60 crores in his bank account".
="The SIT constituted by the Hon'ble Apex Court mandated a deeper probe to uncover the larger conspiracy in the case, as it pertains to the supply of adulterated ghee to TTD, which defiled sentiments of crores of devotees worldwide. Though all the main accused, who supplied ghee to TTD, were enlarged on bail after completion of the statutory period, the investigation into the alleged role of the Petitioner is at a crucial stage. The Petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2025. He has been in judicial custody for only 47 days. The period in which an application for granting of custodial interrogation is not yet completed. Four more accused are still at large. The SIT is required to determine at whose behest the Petitioner had allegedly demanded Rs. 25 per kg of adulterated ghee the mode in which the money was paid to him and others, and who are the ultimate beneficiary unlawfully".
Case Title: Andhra Lawyers Association and Ors V. The Bar Council of India and another
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos: 29216, 30019 & 30063 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 10
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside proceedings by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India (BCI) enhancing non-refundable nomination fee for contesting elections to the State Bar Councils from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,25,000.
The enhancement was made on the grounds that the respective State Bar Councils were facing acute shortage of funds as the Supreme Court had reduced the enrolment fee of Advocates from Rs.16,000 to Rs.600. While the election process commenced on 03.01.2026, writ petitions were filed much before in 2025, challenging the BCI proceedings.
Noting that the abrupt multifold increase of the nomination-fee would frustrate the interests of the Advocate community as they may be deprived of valuable services of a candidate who could not file nomination due to his inability to afford such nomination-fee, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,
“It is a matter of common knowledge that every prospective contestant is not endowed with the same economic comfort. There can be a situation where a candidate who, if elected, would put in his best efforts in furthering the cause of the Advocate Community and would foster the objectives under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the abrupt multifold increase of non-refundable nomination-fee can deter such a worthy candidate from even filing a nomination due to his or her financial limitation. It goes without saying that a reasonable and equal opportunity should be given to candidates who are willing to participate in the election, without which the objective of democratic principle of election under the Advocates Act, 1961 would be an empty formality.”
Case Title: Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9558 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 11
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay when the delay is due to lack of awareness of rules and the family's financial distress is established. Further it was directed that the authorities must make a balanced & objective assessment of financial and other conditions of the family while considering requests for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: D.VENKATESWARAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 34623/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 12
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the President of Kurnool Mandal Praja Parishad, who challenged a no-confidence motion against her on the ground that it lacked the requisite two-third majority— holding that the calculation of the “total number of members” must be based on the effective strength of the Parishad excluding vacancies.
While the Parishad had a total strength of 23 members, there existed 4 vacancies when the motion was carried. As the State authorities (respondents) were interpreting the total number of members as 19, i.e, after excluding the 4 vacancies, the petitioner challenged the action of authorities in carrying forward the motion, without considering the fact that the same fails for want of quorum and is not supported by 2/3 majority of the total members of the Parishad. The petitioner had submitted that the said action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (1994 Act). She also contended that “total number of members” referred to in the 1994 Act would be static and not variable, and cannot be interpreted as total number of members for the time being.
For reference, Section 245 of the 1994 Act provides that a motion for want of confidence must be moved by not less than half of the total number of members of the Parishad and requires to be voted by two-thirds of Members for carrying it. Further, Explanation appended to Section 245(1) provides that "total number of members” means all members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting.
The Single Judge observed,
“The explanation clearly explains the expression “total number of members” as all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members, at the time of meeting, the observations made in the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for respondents, appears to be the only reasonable conclusion deducible, which says that any casual vacancy existing, for example, due to death or resignation or due to the fact that elections to certain constituencies have not been held, would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of no-confidence motion.”
Case Title: Atlapakala Rama Krishna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.19409 OF 2009
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 13
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside a government order whereby an individual was rejected Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, holding that the burden of proving that an individual does not belong to the ST category lies on the authority who disputes it.
In the present case, the petitioner belonged to Konda Kapu caste (a listed ST community under Presidential Order, 1950) and his status was reflected in his school records, revenue documents, and Permanent Caste Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, in 2001, the petitioner's university received an allegation petition claiming that he does not belong to Konda Kapu community. The matter was enquired into by the Tribal Welfare Department, which revealed that he and his family members do not belong to the community, but belonged to Kapu (OC).
This prompted the petitioner to file a writ before the High Court. The Court directed the District Collector (Respondent 2) to hold inquiry as to the social status of the petitioner, who further referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee headed by the Joint Collector (Respondent 3). The Committee concluded that the petitioner does not belong to the Konda Kapu community, and in 2005, Respondent 2 cancelled his caste certificate. An appeal before the State Government's Welfare Department (Respondent 1) was also dismissed in 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the decision before the High Court.
The respondent authorities contended that caste claim was denied primarily on the ground that the petitioner was given several opportunities to attend inquiries and submit evidence, but failed to do so. However, Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy rejected the claim and observed,
“Mere non adducing documentary evidence on behalf of petitioner during inquiry either before the Committee or 2nd respondent, is not a ground to reject the caste claim of the petitioner. The burden of demonstrating that a candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community is on the authority, who disputes the social status.”
Case Title: A. SRIRANGAM DORA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 31902/2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 14
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the revision of a 2007 seniority list of Prohibition & Excise staff, holding that promoted officers cannot claim seniority over direct recruits who subsequently joined service simply because they temporarily occupied the slots meant for the latter.
A Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that the rule prohibiting the disturbance of a settled seniority list after three years does not apply when the revision is undertaken to place Direct Recruits in their allotted slots as per "cyclic points" in the service rules.
"...if an employee is promoted to a post earmarked for direct recruit, his probation shall not be commenced from the date of his appointment into the slot earmarked for direct recruitment but shall be reckoned only from the date on which he would have occupied the vacancy meant for promotee", the HC said.
Case Title: GUMMADI USHA RANI v. SURE MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2487 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 15
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that mere mention of non-existent citations generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a judicial order would not vitiate it, if the law considered is correct and there is no fault in its application to the facts.
The Court observed so while dismissing the challenge to a Trial Court order, where the judicial officer had, while upholding an advocate commissioner's report, relied on certain AI generated citations without verification, resulting in the inclusion of non-existent authorities in the order.
The judicial officer had nonetheless accorded reason while upholding the report, noting that the report is a valuable piece of evidence, which can be scrutinised in light of other pieces of evidence at the trial stage, unless shown to be vitiated by bias or misconduct. The said order was challenged before the High Court on the ground that citations relied on by the Trial Court did not exist. Dismissing the challenge, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held that while the citations may be non-exist, if the Trial Court has considered correct principles of law, and its application to the facts of the case is also correct, then,
“mere mentioning of incorrect or non-existent rulings/citations in the order cannot be a ground to set aside the order. If the principle of law applied is not the law of the land or its application in a given case is faulted because of relying on non-existent rulings generated by AI, then the case for interference would be made out.”
Case Title: V.Rabbani Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos: 31871, 32835 of 2022, 30041 of 2023 & 1690 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the allocation of multiple commercial spaces by State instrumentalities to a single individual is a "pernicious practice" that incentivises monopolistic behaviour and fosters vested interests, thereby undermining the public interest and the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad was dealing with a bunch of petitions, whereby the petitioner challenged- (i) the action of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC)- respondents, in terminating his licenses to run businesses across several open spaces at Yerraguntla Bus Station, and (ii) the subsequent action of issuing fresh tender notification for the same spaces.
The petitioner's licenses were terminated due to allegations of non-payment of license fees and subletting the concerned spaces to third parties, in blatant violation of the license conditions.
Deprecating the practice of allotting multiple open spaces to a single person, the Single Judge held,
"… the very practice adopted by the APSRTC by granting several licences in favour of one single person i.e., the Writ Petitioner is a pernicious practice, thereby giving scope to the Writ Petitioner to sub-let the Open Spaces to the third parties unauthorisedly, thereby violating the conditions of the licences. This apart, granting of several licences to a single person has also created a vested interest inasmuch as State largesse ought not to have been granted to a single person, thereby creating monopoly. It is the incumbent duty on the part of the Respondent Authorities to ensure that each Open Space is allocated to a different person, since such State largesse is created with an avowed object of ensuring that the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good (Article 39(b)); and that the State shall in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income (Article 38(2)) on one hand and to prevent development of vested interest or monopoly on the other hand".