Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 108Nominal IndexLagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88X & Anr. v. Nil, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 89M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. N. Sakkubayamma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 90D. Manjula Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 91Shaik Shabana v. Union of...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 108
Nominal Index
Lagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88
X & Anr. v. Nil, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 89
M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. N. Sakkubayamma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 90
D. Manjula Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 91
Shaik Shabana v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 92
Nagalla Venkateswarlu & Ors. v. Sri Rahul Pandey, IFS & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 93
Godavarthi Srinivasacharyulu v. D.S.S.S. Subrahmanyam Somayaji & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 94
R.P. Kousalya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 95
Kapuganti China Swamy Setty & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 96
Pasupuleti Chinachennaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 97
ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. M/s FE Engineering, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 98
Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 99
M. Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 100
T. Satyanarayana v. Turangi Somaraju (Died) & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 101
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 102
Varun Jeeri v. Siddavatam Pujitha @ Pujitha Jeeri, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 103
Annapoorna (Died) & Others v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 104
Dama Sudhir v. B. Sai Chaithanya & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105
Mekala Sindhu Priya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 106
Y. Ramachandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected appeal, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 107
The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director v. Vadde Durganna & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 108
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Lagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 88
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the offence of 'wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot', lodged against two persons in connection with circulation of an allegedly false social media post in 2021 claiming that the son of a former MLA had been arrested in a drug case.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the essential ingredients of Section 153 IPC were not made out from the allegations in the complaint. The Court observed:
“Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently holds that an offence under Section 153/153A IPC requires proving mens rea (guilty intention) to provoke violence or create public disorder. It mandates that speech must be evaluated for promoting enmity or hatred, emphasizing that mere criticism of the government is not a crime. Further, the accused, who has not done anything directly against a specific community, or was not part of a group/rally raising such animosity, they cannot be held guilty merely by association or on suspicion under Section 153A of IPC.”
Case Title: X & Anr. v. Nil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 89
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governing divorce by mutual consent, is directory and not mandatory, and may be waived where parties have genuinely settled all disputes and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, while clarifying the object of the cooling-off period, observed:
“This Court reiterates that the object of Section 13-B(2) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties to reconsider their decision and explore the possibility of reunion. However, when the parties have been living separately for a considerable period, have settled all supplementary issues, and have consciously decided to part ways, the continuation of the statutory period would serve no useful purpose. On the contrary, it would result in prolonging the agony and hardship of the parties. The law does not mandate the preservation of a matrimonial bond that has irretrievably broken down and where there is no likelihood of reconciliation.”
The High Court directed the Family court to take up the application for advancement of the matter and pass appropriate orders on dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. N. Sakkubayamma & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 90
Clarifying the legal status of lands assigned to Sriharikota Rocket Station evacuees under a 1970 rehabilitation scheme, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that such persons were assignees of Government land with restricted rights and could not claim absolute ownership based on a subsequent memo or revenue entries.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam examined the legality of resumption proceedings initiated by the State for establishment of an Industrial Park and Special Economic Zone. The court observed:
“We are of the view that applying the principle of law as laid down in Yadaiah (supra) to the facts of the present case, that there being difference between resumption of land and the acquisition of land and in the present case it being a case of resumption of land, which Order of resumption has not been set aside in any of the previous petitions and the same was also not under challenge in W.P.No.23208 of 2010, in which the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2013 has been passed, the 108 resumption order of the Government still holds the field as on today and has attained finality.”
The Bench held that the lands in question were liable to resumption for public purpose in accordance with the terms of assignment and that the learned Single Judge erred in directing compulsory acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Title: D. Manjula Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 91
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by a nurse challenging the conduct of elections to the AP Government Nurses Association, holding that disputes relating to elections of a private society cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the Andhra Pradesh Government Nurses Association is a private body constituted for the welfare of its members and that the mere appointment of the Election Officer by the State did not transform the Association into a public body. Holding that the controversy related solely to the internal electoral affairs of a private society and involved no statutory obligation or public function, the Court dismissed both writ petitions as not maintainable without costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Case Title: Shaik Shabana v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 92
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a single mother is entitled to apply for a passport for her minor child without the consent or signature of the father, provided the prescribed declarations under the Passport Rules are furnished.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Battu Devanand directed the processing of a minor's passport application filed by a single mother while observing that:
“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra. Various High Courts have considered this issue and rendered reasoned judgments wherein it is held that a single parent is entitled to apply for a passport for his/ her minor child without the consent or signature of the other parent, subject to furnishing of the prescribed annexures.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application for issuance of a passport to her minor daughter within two weeks.
Case Title: Nagalla Venkateswarlu & Ors. v. Sri Rahul Pandey, IFS & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 93
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by bidders in an agricultural market auction, holding that they had suppressed material facts and obtained interim orders despite being aware that the auction process had been completed and agreements executed with successful bidders.
A single Judge Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda said that a review petition in contempt proceedings was not maintainable noting that High Court powers under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, is absolutely independent under a special statute, as is not an equivalent power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court found the review petition to be not maintainable and an abuse of process of law.
Case Title: Godavarthi Srinivasacharyulu v. D.S.S.S. Subrahmanyam Somayaji & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 94
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order directing authorities to implement a 2010 Endowments Department circular barring archakas (priests) who had travelled abroad from performing Archakatwam in the Garbhalayam (sanctum sanctorum) of Sringeri Sharada Peetham.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya observed that the earlier order could not be sustained as relevant facts with a direct bearing on the controversy had been withheld from the Court.
The Court observed:
“In the given factual matrix, it is apparent that complete facts, which have a material bearing on the controversy at hand, were not brought to notice of learned Single Judge at the time of decision. Order dated 30.03.2026, thus, is not sustainable. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, the matter is remanded to learned Single Judge to consider entire controversy at hand in a wholesome manner after taking into account factual aspects as detailed above.”
Clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute or the validity of the circular, the Court disposed of the writ appeal and set aside the earlier order.
Case Title: R.P. Kousalya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 95
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad while presiding over the case directed Adoni Municipality authorities to remove encroachments from a 33-foot-wide layout road in Adoni after issuing show cause notices to the encroachers, holding that no person has a right to obstruct a public way and that private interests must yield to public interest.
The Court further ordered that if the encroachers fail to vacate within the stipulated period, the authorities shall remove the encroachments within four weeks, using reasonable force if necessary. The Municipality was also directed to ensure that the entire 33-foot-wide layout road is cleared of all encroachments and restored for public use within five weeks from the date of the order.
Case Title: Kapuganti China Swamy Setty & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 96
The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with the proposed construction of a public toilet on Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation's land (GVMC) located adjacent to the petitioners residential property who had objected on the ground of apprehended loss of hygiene and utility.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad while underpinning that under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to life includes the right to a healthy and hygienic life, observed:
“In any case, one apprehension expressed by the Writ Petitioner cannot be ignored, inasmuch as the construction of toilets in the proposed location may cause inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity in terms of hygiene by emitting foul smell if the toilets are not kept clean.Therefore, the burden lies on Lotus International as well as the Official Respondents to ensure that the toilets are maintained absolutely clean and shall also ensure that foul smell shall not emanate from the toilets that may cause inconvenience to the residents of the house belonging to the Writ Petitioner.”
AP High Court Quashes Atrocity FIR, Says Private Monetary Dispute Can't Be Camouflaged As Caste‑Based Offences In Absence Of Ingredients
Case Title: Pasupuleti Chinachennaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 97
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of caste-based abuse under the SC/ST Act and insulting a woman's modesty, holding that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the complaint did not allege that the purported caste-based insults were made "within public view" as required under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and observed that the dispute appeared to arise from private monetary transactions between the parties.
Case Title: ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. M/s FE Engineering
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 98
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that parties in civil and commercial disputes may rely on reports prepared by privately engaged experts, however the admissibility and evidentiary value of such reports would be tested during trial.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed a civil revision petition which had challenged an order of the Commercial Court permitting to place on record an expert report prepared by a claims expert engaged by the plaintiff. The court observed:
"The appointment of Commissioner or expert may be the function of the Court, but that does not preclude to engage an expert and submit that report in evidence as also to produce such an expert to prove the report. In such a case the other side shall also have opportunity to file his evidence if so required as also to cross examine the expert, and produced as a witness in evidence. No doubt, the Court can pass order for appointment of the expert, but that does not mean that a party cannot engage a private expert and submit the report of his opinion," the court said.”
The Court further noted that mere production of an expert report does not automatically make it evidence, its admissibility would depend on proof during trial.
Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case No Bar For Renewal Of Passport: AP High Court
Case Title: Sattaru Ram Mohan Rao v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 99
Directing the directed passport authorities to consider a teenager's passport application–booked in a criminal case where cognizance had not been taken, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for renewing the passport.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that since no cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional court, there were no "proceedings pending before a criminal court" so as to attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Directing the Regional Passport Officer to process the application in accordance with law, the Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the right to travel abroad forms part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M. Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 100
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has pulled up revenue authorities for adopting an "arm twisting method" to deny and delay relief to an 80-year-old ex-serviceman, while directing them to remove his land from the prohibited properties list and grant consequential reliefs within two months.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan observed:
"It is a classic case of adopting arm twisting method by the respondent authorities concerned to deny and delay the relief sought by the petitioner by protracting the litigation on one count or the other and unless quietus is shown to this lis, justice will not be met and the individual would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to implement the government memos by deleting the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and granting all consequential reliefs within two months.
Case Title: T. Satyanarayana v. Turangi Somaraju (Died) & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 101
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of six daughters born from a second marriage to claim equal shares in ancestral family property, while dismissing a second appeal filed by their half-brother who had disputed both their legitimacy and entitlement to partition.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao was hearing a second appeal against a judgment that had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit and granted relief to the plaintiffs. The Court observed that the father himself had admitted the paternity of the daughters in both the pleadings and evidence. It therefore concluded that the daughters were born to the father through his second wife, Raghava.
The Court further held that the suit properties were ancestral in nature, having been purchased by the grandfather of the parties, who had died intestate. Consequently, the daughters were entitled to equal shares in the ancestral properties along with their father and brother.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 102
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that disputes regarding the correctness of a meter's recording must be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government (CEIG) under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
In doing so a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya quashed a Rs. 5.27 crore back-billing demand raised by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL) to Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), finding that the Terms and Conditions of Supply which apply only to defective meters was wrongly invoked even though the meter itself was not defective.
The Court observed that disputes concerning incorrect recording by an otherwise functional meter fall within the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector and cannot be unilaterally determined by the electricity supplier through back-billing assessments.
Case Title: Varun Jeeri v. Siddavatam Pujitha @ Pujitha Jeeri
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 103
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband's petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial case from Family Court at Tirupati, holding that the Family Court's insistence on his personal appearance in the proceedings could not, by itself, give rise to an apprehension of bias or justify transfer of the case.
Examining the record, a Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao noted that there was no material to support the allegation that the Presiding Officer was acting unfairly or under any extraneous influence and observed:
“The aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner/husband herein that he will not receive any fair and impartial trial is baseless and no prima facie material has been placed by the petitioner/husband that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati, is acting unfairly influenced by some extraneous considerations. As stated supra, “mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another Court”. ”
Case Title: S. Annapoorna (Died) & Others v. S. Satyanarayana Murthy & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 104
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in a dispute involving rival Wills, an unregistered Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances cannot displace a duly proved registered Will, and the “latest valid testament” would prevail when earlier document is not established in accordance with law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao found that the defendants had failed to prove the unregistered Will due to several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, while the registered Will relied upon by the plaintiffs stood duly proved through attesting witnesses and was free from any suspicious circumstances. Upholding the first appellate court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the second appeal.
Case Title: Dama Sudhir v. B. Sai Chaithanya & Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed a cruelty and dowry demand case against husband, observing that the prosecution evidence had already been disbelieved during the trial of his parents who were acquitted of the same allegations and thus compelling the husband to undergo a separate trial would amount to waste of Court's time.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy allowed the husband's criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against him, noting that:
"In the present case on hand also, the evidence of material prosecution witnesses recorded in split up case found untrustworthy and in that event, even if trial is to be proceeded with, same witnesses have to be examined and same evidence has to be let in, which is waste of time of the Court and there are no chances of conviction. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing the petitioner/A1 to face the entire ordeal of trial.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/A1."
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would only subject the petitioner to the ordeal of trial without any real possibility of conviction, the Court quashed the criminal case pending against him.
AP High Court Transfers Cheque Bounce Case For 'Convenience' Of Female Accused
Case Title: Mekala Sindhu Priya v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 106
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has transferred a cheque bounce case instituted against a woman from Sullurpet to Nellore, observing that convenience of parties specially of woman litigants is a relevant factor which must be taken into account while considering transfer petitions.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act noted that:
"It is well settled that while considering a transfer petition, the paramount consideration is whether such transfer is necessary for the ends of justice. Convenience of parties, particularly that of a woman litigant, the possibility of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, and the overall balance of convenience are relevant factors to be taken into account"
Finding that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the matter was transferred, whereas the petitioner would face considerable hardship if required to continue attending proceedings at Sullurpet, the Court held that transfer was necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Case Title: Y. Ramachandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected appeal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 107
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted two persons accused of bribery in a trap operation after finding that the investigating officer had conducted what the court described as a “table investigation”, holding that the FIR and crucial investigation records were prepared after the trap proceedings and not in accordance with law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi allowed two criminal appeals filed by a government stockiest and a private individual, setting aside their 2008 convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 observing that the complaint, FIR and trap proceedings appeared to have been prepared together at the ACB office after the alleged trap, the Court held that the investigating officer had effectively conducted a "table investigation" by preparing the records subsequently and projecting them as contemporaneous documents.
Case Title: The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director v. Vadde Durganna & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 108
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a deceased motor accident victim from Rs. 7.28 lakh to Rs. 10.06 lakh, in view of the deceased's future prospects and age even though the claimants had not filed an appeal.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma dismissed an appeal filed by APSRTC challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and observed that although the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had notionally fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 5,000 despite evidence regarding his employment, the age of the deceased warranted addition towards future prospects.