Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 267Nominal IndexM. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 228X v. State & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 229G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 230X vs State of AP & Ors., 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 267
Nominal Index
M. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227
The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 228
X v. State & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 229
G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 230
X vs State of AP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 231
X & Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 232
X v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 233
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 234
Mallampudi Veera Venkata Krishna Reddy and Others vs Syamala Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 235
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kurella Rahul and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 236
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. C Nagamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 237
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. G. Shajahan Begum and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 238
Mohammed Zuber & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; Sri Venkateswara Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 239
Selam Komala Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 240
Yanda Dharma Rao v. The General Manager and Others; Yanda Dharma Rao v. The Chairman and Managing Director and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 241
Saradindu Chakravarty v. Union of India & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 242
Perivemula Venkateswarlu and Another v. Mediga Anjaiah, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 243
Vankudoth Greeshma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 244
Tadisetti Tirupatamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 245
X v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 246
Yarragorla Itukanalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 247
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purama Raghavamma and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 248
G. Abdul Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 249
A. Amaranadh Babu v. Marreddy Anjaneya Reddy and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 250
Rai Pavithra v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 251
Oil Palm Developers and Processors Association & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 252
Gunakala Sivaiah and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 253
Thota Gopal & Others v. Pandipati Gopal Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 254
State Bank of India v. P. Rama Chandraiah & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 255
Kethavath Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 256
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 257
S. Preethi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 258
W.P. (SR) No. 45133 of 2026, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 259
Chodisetty Nirmalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; Gade Hanumantha Rao Naidu and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 260
Bandaru Anantha Lakshmi & Others v. Nelaprolu Venkat Rao (Deceased) by LRs & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 261
Majji Guru Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 262
C.V. Pavan Kumar v. Education (E.E.I) Department and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 263
Suvvala Sateesh and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 264
Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 265
Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 266
Govardhana Girishwara Devasthanam Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 267
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: M. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the removal of a contractual Field Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) noting that it was done without notice, without giving a hearing and without offering the alternative engagement contemplated under the applicable policy.
The issue arose after the petitioner failed to meet the prescribed person-days requirement. The Gram Panchayat was consequently downgraded from List-I to List-II, following which the petitioner could no longer continue as a Field Assistant.
Under the Field Assistant Human Resource Policy (FAHRP), a person engaged as a Field Assistant can no longer continue in that position in a Gram Panchayat after such downgrading. In such a situation, the policy contemplates an opportunity to work as a Senior Mate alternatively.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the authorities were required to follow the applicable policy.
Case Title: The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramasubba Reddy
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 228
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a bar licence holder cannot claim a refund of proportionate licence fee for the period during which his licence remained suspended.
In doing so, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order directing refund of the proportionate licence fee and dismissed the writ petition filed by the licence holder.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan found that the licence holder had failed to produce the NOC despite submitting an affidavit undertaking to produce it within seven days and subsequently seeking further time.
The Court said:
“In our considered opinion, writ petitioner is not entitled to refund of amount in question. This is so for the reason that submission of NOC was required to be submitted along with application seeking renewal in terms of applicable rule. Needful was admittedly not done despite an affidavit being submitted by writ petitioner besides submitting application seeking extension for the period of deposit of same.
In the given facts and circumstances, it is apparent that it is writ petitioner himself, who was responsible for turn of events. In case NOC had been deposited within stipulated period or even period till which order dated 31.07.2008 was passed, it would have been able to carry on its trade.”
Case Title: X v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 229
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a cruelty case against a husband and his family members, finding that the wife's complaint was lodged as a counterblast after members of her family were convicted for attacking the husband and his family under Sections 323 and 506 IPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.
The Court observed:
“A holistic reading of the complaint lodged by the complainant, does not disclose about the incident which has happened on 25.04.2018, which ultimately culminated into conviction on all the accused therein, who are none other than the father, mother and other relatives of the de facto-complainant. There is nothing for this Court to disbelieve the said act since the records speak for itself, videlicet, convicted by a competent criminal Court. Leaving apart the said arguments. This Court has also ventured into the contents in the chargesheet which is filed after investigation in pursuance of the complaint dated 06.06.2018 and does not indicate any specific overt act/ allegations so as to attract the offences under Section 498A IPC.”
Case Title: G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 230
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), being a coercive and preventive process, requires due consideration and cannot be resorted to routinely or mechanically.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam found that the order issuing the NBW did not disclose any specific reasons for resorting to such coercive process at the first instance. Stressing that NBWs cannot be issued routinely or mechanically the court said:
“In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the object and purport underlying the same, there can be no manner of doubt that the statutory scheme confers upon the Courts or other judicial forums the power and jurisdiction to issue both bailable and non-bailable warrants. However, mere conferment of such power does not permit to exercise it in a routine or mechanical manner. The Courts are required to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case and satisfy itself as to the necessity of resorting to such coercive process. Discretion vested in the Court must, therefore, be exercised judiciously, cautiously and for reasons to be recorded.
AP High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Husband's NRI Relatives For Lack Of S.188 CrPC Sanction
Case Title: X vs State of AP & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 231
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an NRI brother-in-law and sister-in-law of a woman for alleged cruelty, criminal intimidation and dowry offences arising from alleged incidents in the United States and India.
In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela found that the allegations relating to the incidents in the United States, the Court noted that the statutory requirement under Section 188 Cr.P.C. could not be dispensed with. It observed:
“It is no more res integra that the procedure needs to be followed and adhered to scrupulously in the event the incident occurred in a country (other than India). The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Since, there is no sanction obtained by the Investigating Officer for prosecuting accused Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of for the offences committed outside India, the same constitutes a lacuna which cannot be overlooked. In view of the ration laid down in the said judgments, the proceedings in C.C.No.2057 of 2021, in respect of accused Nos.4 and 5 is quashed so far as Section 498A is concerned and the allegations made outside India.”
Cruelty FIR Can Be Quashed Where Parties Have Genuinely, Amicably Settled Differences: AP High Court
Case Title: X & Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 232
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed a cruelty FIR lodged by a wife against her husband and his relatives after the parties entered into a settlement of the matrimonial dispute, holding that cases where parties have genuinely, amicably settled their differences and where conviction possibility is remote can be quashed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed that continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances may result in “unnecessary harassment” or abuse of the process of law.
Although the offence is non-compoundable, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings in appropriate cases where the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved.
Case Title: X v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 233
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that allegations of harassment against the husband's close relatives require careful scrutiny when they live in different cities and rarely or never visit the complainant's residence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:
“This Court has also considered the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana Others v. State of Telangana and Another, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , and in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal' and Others (referred to supra 2).
In all these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically depicted that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with such complaints arising out of matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment against the husband's close relatives, who have been living in different cities and have never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations made by the complainant are, therefore, required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 234
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a husband to amend his counter in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to correct inadvertent typographical mistakes.
On a contextual reading of the pleading, the Court found that the disputed references were typographical errors. It held that courts should not adopt a “hyper technical approach” where such corrections are necessary to place the correct factual position before the Court and determine the “real question in controversy.”
Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:
“Therefore, in order to try the case on hand on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails, there is a need to place the true facts of the case before the Court so that the Court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. No injustice will be done to the respondent because the proposed amendments seek to bring before the Court the correct factual situation, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the same are required for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Courts should not adopt a hyper technical approach.”
Case Title: Mallampudi Veera Venkata Krishna Reddy and Others vs Syamala Satyanarayana Reddy and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 235
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a debtor committed an act of insolvency under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, by transferring properties to his relatives through three sale deeds with an intention to defeat or delay his creditors.
"Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Judge are contrary to law. A plain reading of the unrebutted averments and the material placed on record would clearly establish that the 1st respondent committed the act of insolvency, as such, the Order dated 17.09.2012 passed in I.P.No.6 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry is hereby set aside.", a single-judge bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli ruled.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kurella Rahul and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 236
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of negligence in a fatal tyre-burst accident, holding the vehicle owner vicariously liable for the driver's negligent act.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that a tyre burst or mechanical defect, by itself, could not absolve the vehicle owner of liability, particularly when there was no evidence that adequate road safety measures and reasonable care and caution had been taken.
It also found that the car was in perfect condition, further weakening the mechanical-defect defence.
Dismissing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.17.83 lakh to Rs.18.63 lakh.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. C Nagamani and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 237
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must award the “just compensation” established by the evidence and cannot restrict it merely because the claim petition sought a lower amount.
Dismissing an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited, Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela modified the Tribunal's award and enhanced the compensation payable to the deceased's family from Rs. 28 lakh to Rs. 29.89 lakh with 7.5% interest per annum.
The Court observed:
“A careful perusal of the impugned Award reveals that although the Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.28,39,644/-, restricted the Award to 28,00,000/- solely on the ground that the claim petition was confined to the said amount. In the considered opinion of this Court, the restriction is unsustainable. Once the Tribunal quantified the just compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record, it ought to have awarded the said amount instead of restricting it to the amount claimed in the petition. Such restriction defeats the very object of awarding 'just compensation' under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
Case Title: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. G. Shajahan Begum and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 238
The Andhra Pradesh High Court enhanced the accident compensation awarded over the death of a 23-year-old Chartered Accountancy student to Rs. 25.38 lakh, holding that the Motor Accident Tribunal failed to adequately consider his educational qualifications and “bright future” while assessing his earning potential.
Dismissing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that the Tribunal had not given due weight to the evidence regarding the deceased's education and career prospects while determining his income.
The Court observed:
“Here, this Court finds that the decision and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, despite the fact that he was qualified the Common Proficiency Test (CPT) and was preparing for the next stage of Chartered Accountancy, namely the Integrated Professional Competence Course (IPCC), at Central Academy Institute, Vijayawada, are not justified. This Court would construe that the deceased was pursuing his Chartered Accountancy course at Central Academy Institute, Vijayawada, which substantiates that the deceased is having a bright future.
In view of the same, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased, who was pursuing Chartered Accountancy at the Central Academy Institute, Vijayawada, at Rs.15,000/- per month.”
Case Title: Mohammed Zuber & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; Sri Venkateswara Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 239
The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld State Government's order introducing centralized system for procuring dietary items and non-perishable goods for Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs), holding that the procurement policy cannot be faulted because some suppliers were unable to satisfy prescribed eligibility conditions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed appeals challenging the Single Judge's order upholding the State's procurement policy and tender process.
The Court observed:
"The tender conditions are prescribed by the Employer based on its requirements, including the quantity and quality of the items to be procured and the proper execution of the work. Therefore, only those who can meet the prescribed requirements will participate in the tender process. The petitioners' inability to meet such requirements cannot be a ground to challenge the ECV or the quantity, quality or specifications of the items to be procured.
As stated above, procurement at the Zonal level would enhance the bargaining capacity of the authorities and enable procurement of better-quality products at competitive prices, thereby benefiting the exchequer. The procurement process is also intended to ensure the supply of quality products for the benefit of the student community. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the authorities cannot be faulted, and no mala fides can be attributed."
Case Title: Selam Komala Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 240
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that that a donor cannot cancel a registered gift/settlement deed at will once the property has been transferred to the donee. Such unilateral cancellation cannot be registered without the bilateral consent of the parties or a decree from a competent Civil Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed:
“Therefore, a reading of Sections 123 and 126 of the TP Act in juxtaposition, it is abundantly clear that once a donor divests themselves of the title to the property via a registered gift deed, such donor enjoys no residual right to unilaterally revoke it at their mere will. If the donor alleges that the gift was obtained by fraud, coercion, or violation of a condition precedent, his/her sole remedy is to institute a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, before a jurisdictional Civil Court.
It is a trite law that administrative circulars, memos, or executive instructions cannot override, supplant, or run contrary to substantive law or statutory rules. A registered deed of settlement or gift, once accepted and acted upon, results in an absolute transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The donor is completely divested of his right, title, and interest in the property. Such a vested right cannot be extinguished at the whims and fancies of the donor through a unilateral deed of cancellation, nor can an administrative memo revive such a void document”.
Case Title: Yanda Dharma Rao v. The General Manager and Others; Yanda Dharma Rao v. The Chairman and Managing Director and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 241
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired BSNL employee for failure to adhere to the four-year limitation prescribed under the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, and directed the authorities to release his retirement benefits.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed the writ petitions and observed:
“It is also an admitted fact that the department had knowledge of the alleged fake certificates pertaining to 31 members as early as 17.04.2018. Under the applicable rules, where disciplinary proceedings are instituted after retirement, such proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years prior to the date of such institution. In the present case, the charge memo was issued only on 16.09.2023.
Thus, even though the department had knowledge of the alleged misconduct by 17.04.2018, the charge memo came to be issued more than four years thereafter. The disciplinary proceedings, having been instituted beyond the period prescribed under the applicable rules, are therefore unsustainable. Accordingly, the charge memo dated 16.09.2023 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to process and release the petitioner's retirement benefits in accordance with the VRS order dated 07.01.2020, as per the applicable rules.”
Case Title: Saradindu Chakravarty v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 242
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) cannot adjudicate upon the veracity of an FIR or declare it false, given its limited advisory and recommendatory role under Article 338 of the Constitution.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:
“The Supreme Court of India has consistently reaffirmed that the National Commissioner for Scheduled Castes is an advisory and recommendatory body under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and it lacks adjudicatory or judicial powers. The Commission cannot act like a civil or criminal court. It has no jurisdiction to formally judge, quash, or declare an active criminal case or FIR to be false or fabricated.
In the instant case though the Commission recommended that a Joint Committee be constituted, comprising the Collector and the Commissioner of Police and to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the false case filed against respondent no.5, however it had came to a conclusion that the police had registered a false FIR against respondent no.5. The Commission being only an advisory and recommendatory body, lacks such adjudicatory or judicial powers.”
Case Title: Perivemula Venkateswarlu and Another v. Mediga Anjaiah
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 243
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a temporary injunction protecting a plaintiff's alleged possession of property under a Rs. 1.5 crore sale agreement, holding that the trial court failed to record reasons establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:
“The Orders show as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants that the Trial Court did not record reasons for its satisfaction on the pleadings or documents of the parties to record its satisfaction on prima facie case and balance of convince but the Trial Court merely referred to their pleadings, exhibits and documents, and passed orders. It is needless to mention that the Courts should not go for a 'mini trial' in a petition filed for temporary injunction, but the Courts are supposed to record its satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
This Court could not grant status-quo without recording a finding qua the possession, further the order of the Trial Court also could not show prima facie satisfaction with reasons on who is in possession of the property immediately prior to the institution of the suit, thus, this Court is not inclined to order status-quo in the circumstances of the case, leaving the issue open to the Trial Court to examine the material and dispose the same as per law.”
NEET-UG: AP High Court Rejects Telangana ST Certificate For Reservation In State MBBS Quota
Case Title: Vankudoth Greeshma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 244
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservation benefits under the Andhra Pradesh State quota for MBBS admissions to a NEET-UG aspirant holding a Telangana-issued ST certificate, observing that recognition of the same community as a Scheduled Tribe in both States does not entitle her to reservation benefits in Andhra Pradesh.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a NEET-UG aspirant, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State admission authorities to consider her under the Open Category for MBBS admissions under the State quota, despite recognising her as a local candidate.
The Court observed:
“Grievance raised in present petition is that while being considered in category of local candidate, she should be afforded further benefit of belonging to ST category as well at the time of considering her in the local candidate category.
In the present case, petitioner is admittedly a resident of Telangana; her community certificate has been issued by competent authority in the State of Telangana; she is treated as a local candidate in State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of her pursuing her studying in Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. Admittedly, she is afforded the benefit of being local candidate in Andhra Pradesh and ST category in the All India Quota. In the given factual matrix, the applicable provisions and position of law as discussed in foregoing paras, action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is absolutely justified and is unimpeachable and petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation under ST category in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Argument that the community to which the petitioner belongs is also recognized to be a Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh entitles her to such reservation and the same cannot be denied only on the ground of certificate in this regard by the authority in Telangana, is clearly devoid of any merit in the given facts and circumstances, hence rejected”
Case Title: Tadisetti Tirupatamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 245
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an eligible widow cannot be denied pension benefits for the period during which her application remained pending due to administrative delays.
The Court directed the authorities to pay her pension arrears from the date of application, subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions.
In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the authorities could not take advantage of their own failure to process the application within the prescribed timeframe and deprive the petitioner of the benefits of the scheme.
Case Title: X v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 246
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a father's plea seeking custody of his four-year-old son from the mother through a habeas corpus petition.
In doing so, the Court held that the child's custody with his biological mother could not be considered illegal and found no exceptional circumstances warranting a change of custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:
“In the present case, the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances could not be brought to our notice so as to justify the writ jurisdiction by way of writ of habeas corpus, as prayed, to change the custody of the minor son aged about four years who is with the mother. The petitioner will have the alternative remedy as may be open under law for custody of the minor.”
Case Title: Yarragorla Itukanalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 247
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a person aggrieved by the police's failure to register a FIR must ordinarily pursue the remedies available under the BNSS, before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution unless urgent intervention is warranted.
The central issue was the alleged failure of the police to initiate criminal proceedings despite receiving the petitioner's complaint.
A Single Judge bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed:
“In this juncture, it is appropriate to note the relevant provisions enunciated in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) to perceive the overall picture. Relevant provisions of BNSS, are Sections 173 and 210 read with Section 223.
As seen from above statutory realm discloses that BNSS, 2023 contemplates a structured sequential scheme to initiate criminal proceedings. The codified structured formula is provided in BNSS, 2023 so far as registration of the complaint and, if not, what are the other steps to follow.
It can be seen from the above dictum that a party, whoever approaches the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has a legal remedy available in another statutory scheme in a structured formula; as such, exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not warrant grant of relief in usual course.”
Case Title: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purama Raghavamma and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 248
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability to pay compensation for a workman's death merely because the insurance policy was not updated in the name of the subsequent owner of the vehicle, when the policy was valid and in force at the time of the accident.
Dismissing an appeal filed by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the award directing the original policyholder, insurer and subsequent owner to jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,91,684 to the deceased's dependants.
The Court observed:
“The mere fact that the insurance policy was not transferred along with the vehicle would not, by itself, mean that the coverage under the policy ceased to operate in respect of the accident that occurred during the subsistence of the policy period. The non-mutation of the name of the subsequent owner in the insurance policy maintained with the appellant/OP- 2 cannot, by itself, disentitle the applicants from seeking compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly when the policy was valid and in force as on the date of the accident.
In the instant case, as stated above, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle had been transferred. The transferor and the transferee have both been impleaded as opposite parties in the present proceedings, along with the appellant-Insurance company. Therefore, the factum of transfer is not in dispute. By virtue of section 157(1) of the M.V.Act, the insurance policy covering the vehicle is deemed to have been transferred to the transferee. Consequently, the policy remained valid on the date of the accident, and the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award”
Case Title: G. Abdul Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 249
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a husband's conviction under Section 498-A IPC, ruling that cruelty allegedly inflicted over a demand for additional dowry cannot be considered independently when the alleged dowry demand remains unproved.
The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to explain the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:
“Considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the view that in a criminal case, when there is a clear allegation of torture upon a married woman on account of a demand for additional dowry, and after trial it has been disproved that there were no demand for additional dowry, the sole allegation of torture, as alleged to have been meted out by the husband and his relatives, cannot stand alone; moreover, delay in lodging FIR was not explained by prosecution in this case.”
Case Title: A. Amaranadh Babu v. Marreddy Anjaneya Reddy and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 250
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, need not repeat the cheque amount in its concluding paragraph if the notice, read as a whole, clearly specifies the amount demanded.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta made these observations while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The Court observed:
“A demand notice must be read as a whole. Mere omission to repeat the cheque amount in the concluding paragraph of the notice does not ipso facto render the notice invalid. In the present case, the demand notice, when read in its entirety, is very clearly conveys the amount demanded by the claimant from the accused, who is the drawer of the cheque. Thus, it cannot be said to be invalid.
On a comprehensive reading of the notice, the drawer is made aware of the amount demanded in respect of the dishonoured cheque. Consequently, the requirements of proviso (b) to Section 138 of NI Act has said to be sufficiently complied with. Hence, the argument of learned legal aid counsel appearing for the petitioner on that point appears to be not acceptable.”
Case Title: Rai Pavithra v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 251
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that non-consideration of bail orders, being vital material for arriving at proper satisfaction on the necessity of preventive detention, vitiates the detention order.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi accordingly set aside the detention of a man who had been granted bail in two cases under the NDPS Act observing:
“Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of nonconsideration of the relevant material the bail orders, which was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, the Principal Secretary to the Government, we provide that the respondent No.2- Principal Secretary to the Government shall be at liberty to pass fresh order but in accordance with law and in case any order of detention is so passed afresh, the period of detention shall not exceed in total 12 months, including the period already served under the impugned detention orders.”
State Can Devise Own Palm Oil Pricing Formula, But Must Be Based On Relevant Data: AP High Court
Case Title: Oil Palm Developers and Processors Association & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 252
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the State Oil Palm (Regulation of Production and Processing) Act 1993, empowers the State Government to fix the minimum price of oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFBs) using its own methodology.
The court said that the Government need not follow the pricing formula recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
However, the Court clarified that the Oil Extraction Ratio (OER) used to determine the price must have a rational basis in relevant data. The State must be able to explain how the chosen ratio is supported by evidence concerning oil extraction from FFBs originating in Andhra Pradesh.
The CACP, a body under the Union Ministry of Agriculture, had studied the pricing of oil palm FFBs and recommended a pricing formula based on the weighted average prices of crude palm oil and palm kernel nuts.
Case Title: Gunakala Sivaiah and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 253
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that state universities cannot reject applications for Associate Professor posts solely because contractual teaching faculty were paid less than the gross emoluments prescribed for regularly appointed Assistant Professors under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.
In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed that the emoluments requirement under Regulation 10(f)(iii) cannot be treated as an absolute criterion when the candidates' requisite teaching experience is undisputed.
The Court said:
“However, the emoluments cannot be said to be an absolute determining factor over experience of teaching, where there is no whiff of a doubt to the qualitative minimum teaching experience in the cadre or equivalent cadre of Assistant Professor, like in the case of nonregular teaching faculty in the Universities and Government lecturers in Government colleges teaching corresponding courses.
The Universities, having not paid the emoluments as those of Assistant Professor to the Petitioners, could not have taken advantage of their wrong and reject the applications of the Petitioners.”
Case Title: Thota Gopal & Others v. Pandipati Gopal Reddy & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 254
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that fabricating sale agreements to defeat contractual rights and transferring disputed property in breach of a court undertaking can attract prosecution under Sections 193 and 206 IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 254]
A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar was hearing appeals arising from competing claims over the same parcel of land.
The Court explained that Section 206 can apply when a party fraudulently transfers property in anticipation of a decree or order in a pending civil suit.
The Court found that rival sale agreements had been fabricated in collusion to defeat the plaintiff's claim. It also held that the subsequent sale of the property during the pendency of the appeals, despite an undertaking not to alienate it, warranted prosecution under Section 206 IPC.
Case Title: State Bank of India v. P. Rama Chandraiah & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 255
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the burden of proving a caste claim lies on the claimant under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993.
A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar further observed that benefits secured through false community certificates can be withdrawn under the Act.
It thus set aside a Single Judge's order that had quashed the cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificates issued to two brothers and set aside their dismissal from service by the State Bank of India.
Case Title: Kethavath Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 256
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Juvenile Justice Boards in State to ensure that children in conflict with law are placed in observation home or a safe place during the pendency of enquiry in instances where bail is not granted to such children.
It issued the directions while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the paternal aunt of three children, who alleged that they had been illegally detained after the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) returned them to the police for further production.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:
“Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, before parting with the judgment we issue directions:
A) to all the Juvenile Justice Boards in the State of Andhra Pradesh to ensure that at the time of passing the order in relation to the child alleged to be in conflict with law, produced before the Board, specific orders are passed for placing the child to observation home or a place of safety during the pendency of enquiry, if the bail is not granted. The JJB should not make simple return to leave the CCL to the police and to place CCL at the discretion of the police to decide where to place the CCL pending enquiry, and
B) to the Principal Secretary to the Women, Children, Differently abled and Senior Citizens (JJ & Genl) Department, to ensure establishment of sufficient number of observation homes, at least one each, in every district. Though, an observation home for a group of districts is also contemplated by the JJ Act, but it would be preferable and in furtherance with the legal mandate to have atleast one observation home in each District.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 257
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed an order setting aside ex-parte divorce decree which was challenged by the wife after 680-day delay, noting that the trial court failed to assign reasons for condoning delay and did not consider the consequences of the husband's subsequent remarriage. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 257]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the trial court had failed to justify condoning the delay, warranting interference. It clarified that the wife could still claim any statutory entitlements available to her under law.
The Court observed:
“In the case at hand, as referred supra, an application to condone the delay and an application to set aside the ex parte decree were filed after the husband had remarried and was blessed with a female child. The learned trial court failed to consider the said aspect and the expressions of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to supra while condoning the delay and also setting aside the ex parte decree.
Apart from the same, the trial court failed to assign reasons while condoning the delay of 680 days. Of course, this Court is not swayed away by the observations of the trial court vis-à-vis the conduct of the wife in the court. The legal position referred to supra supports the case of the petitioner. The trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. If the order of the trial Court is allowed to continue, it would cause a travesty of justice. Therefore, the orders under revision warrant interference.”
Case Title: S. Preethi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 258
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the 12-month preventive detention of a man accused of involvement in multiple cases of smuggling red sandalwood, holding that a satisfactorily explained delay in deciding a representation against preventive detention does not vitiate the detention order.
In examining the delay, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar found that the authorities had adequately explained it by detailing the steps taken to obtain remarks and the deployment of officials for census-related duties and preparatory work for the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Case Number : W.P. (SR) No. 45133 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 259
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that orders of constitutional courts bind the executive even during the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for elections.
It observed that the Model Code of Conduct cannot prevent the implementation of a promotion granted pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court.
The case arose from a petition challenging an Executive Engineer's refusal to implement an employee's promotion to the post of Technical Assistant, citing the Model Code of Conduct for local body elections.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:
“As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, the Writ Petitioner is neither doing any election work nor in a key position to attract the G.Os, which the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for Respondents Nos.1 to 4, is also fairly conceded. Thus, the 4th Respondent cannot rely on the Model Code of Conduct and issue the Letter dated 16.10.2026. Even if the Writ Petitioner falls in either of these categories, that he is doing any election work or he is in a key position, still the Model Code of Conduct does not come in the way since this promotion proceeding is issued in terms of the order of the WP No.7566 of 2026 dated 21.09.2026, and equally the question of clearance of the State Election Commission will not arise for effecting this promotion and posting, which is in terms of the order of this Court. The Orders of the Constitutional Courts bind the Executive even during the Model Code of Conduct.”
Case Title: Chodisetty Nirmalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; Gade Hanumantha Rao Naidu and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 260
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be disregarded merely because a small portion of land is being acquired.
It observed that deprivation of property must not only be authorised by law but must also follow the procedure established by law, even where the acquisition serves a larger public interest.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi accordingly directed the expeditious consideration of interim relief applications filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of land for the E-3 Seed Access Road project in the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Bandaru Anantha Lakshmi & Others v. Nelaprolu Venkat Rao (Deceased) by LRs & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 261
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that judgment debtors who intentionally evade court notices and fail to show sufficient cause for condoning delays in seeking to set aside ex parte orders cannot be permitted to prolong execution proceedings.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:
“Having fully aware of the execution proceedings, the petitions appear to have been filed only to further drag on the execution proceedings. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Executing Court rightly held that there is sufficient service of notice on the petitioners, and inspite of the same and having well aware of the execution proceedings, they did not make their appearance, and this is only to delay and drag on the execution proceedings. There is no infirmity or perversity.
In the case on hand, the suit is of the year 1988 and the E.P. is of the year 2002. Suit was decreed on 27.1.1997 and the appeal preferred against the decree was dismissed on 20.07.2000. More than 26 years has elapsed after dismissal of the First Appeal. The Execution Petition has been pending for the last 24 years. The petitioners/judgment debtors successfully dragged on the proceedings. Therefore, the Executing Court is directed to complete the E.P. proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Circular instructions of this Court, expeditiously.”
Case Title: Majji Guru Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 262
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the punishment imposed on an Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP) Reserve Inspector for failing to report an accidental firing incident involving a constable.
The punishment involved reduction of pay by one stage for one year, with cumulative effect on future increments and pension.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that negligence, slackness, complacency or an indifferent attitude in the discharge of duties cannot be countenanced, particularly when it involves withholding information about an incident of a serious nature.
Case Title: C.V. Pavan Kumar v. Education (E.E.I) Department and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 263
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the three-year limitation prescribed under a 1992 state government order for entertaining applications seeking correction or alteration of date of birth in Secondary School Leaving Certificate.
The Court held that the limitation has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and that a change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that the three-year limit serves to prevent unverifiable claims for changes to dates of birth recorded in school certificates.
Repeated Extensions Do Not Give Temporary Employees Right To Continue In Service: AP High Court
Case Title: Suvvala Sateesh and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 264
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that temporary employees cannot claim continuation in service as a matter of right after expiry of their fixed tenure, even if their engagements have been extended repeatedly.
The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea by 12 temporary employees of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, challenging the discontinuation of their services without prior notice or formal termination orders.
Case Title: Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 265
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a beverages manufacturing unit in Nagarapalem village, Srikakulam district. It held that unsupported fears of environmental damage and groundwater depletion cannot justify halting an industrial project that has obtained statutory approvals.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy dismissed the writ petition and observed:
“Mere apprehension of environmental damage, ground water depletion, etc., unsupported by cogent material, cannot be a ground to interdict an industrial project which has secured all statutory approvals."
Case Title: Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 266
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that the mere non-mention of solemn verification in an affidavit, despite the presence of solemn affirmation, ipso facto does not warrant rejection of an application as such a defect is curable.
In view of this, the court set aside an order of the insolvency court dismissing an application seeking to set aside an allegedly fraudulent property transaction on the ground that the supporting affidavit was defective.
Instead of dismissing the application on this ground, the insolvency court could have returned it with a direction to cure the defect, the High Court observed, reiterating that “rules of procedure are made to further the cause of justice and not to prove a hindrance thereto.”
Case Title: Govardhana Girishwara Devasthanam Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 267
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking an alternative location for the proposed Chittoor-Thatchur Highway interchange, holding that the petitioners failed to establish any ground to doubt the alignment approved by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan was hearing a PIL seeking a comparative feasibility assessment of the proposed interchange at kilometre 86 +180 near Appalaraju Kandriga, Sankarapuram, and an alternative location at kilometre 83.000/83.200 near the Govardhanagiri Limited Vertical Underpass (LVUP) junction.