Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026
[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29]NOMINAL INDEXSANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI...
[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22 TO 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29]
NOMINAL INDEX
SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22
SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23
GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24
Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25
NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26
G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27
ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28
Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29
FINAL ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025
Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 22
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that attestation of vakalatnana is not a mere formality, but a mandatory safeguard to ensure genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. For reference, a vakalat is a written authority executed by a litigant authorising an advocate to appear and conduct proceedings before a Court.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti lamented the increasing instances of petitioners denying to sign a vakalat, which constitutes “unholy litigation” that not only demoralises the confidence of advocates, but also creates obstacles in the “noble profession”, and embarrasses the legal fraternity.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025
Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that banks/bunds of tanks constitute an integral part of a water body, which need to be strengthened from time to time, and any encroachment or construction on the same violates the Public Trust Doctrine.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition whereby the petitioners challenged the proposed closure of a 30-foot road, which the State asserted was not an existing road but formed part of Zurreru Vagu (the Vagu), reserved for natural water flow and flood protection.
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2075, 2076 and 2077 of 2022
Case Title: GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 24
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has explained that while the insistence on explaining day-to-day delay is to tackle pendency of cases in Trial Courts and to contain litigants who seek to unnecessarily protract litigation, Trial Courts are nonetheless expected to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach while considering applications seeking condonation of delay.
Justice Harinath N referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others [AIR 1987 SC 1353], where the Supreme Court observed that applications for condonation of delay should have approached liberally as a litigant derives no benefit by lodging an appeal late, and refusal to condone might result in a meritorious matter being thrown at a threshold level.
PIL Not Meant For Firms Or Contractors: AP High Court Dismisses PIL On AP TRANSCO Tender Conditions
Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 239 of 2025
Case Title: Kanithi Deepak v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 25
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an Advocate challenging the tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO), holding that the petitioner sought to espouse the cause of firms, contractors, and companies, and not of persons who are economically challenged.
The petitioner questioned four tender notifications and purchase orders relating to supply, laying and commissioning of 220 kV underground cables relating to transmission infrastructure in Guntur, and alleged that the eligibility and technical criteria were restrictive and tailored to favour select private bidders, and thereby violative of Fundamental Rights of the Company under Article 19(1)(g), and detrimental to Public Exchequer and fair competition.
Case Number: TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 36/2025
Case Title: NALLAMOLU RAJARAJESWARI v. NALLAMOLU MOHANA MURALI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a wife's plea to transfer the divorce case initiated by her husband, from Repalle, Guntur District to Ongole, Prakasam District, holding that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife must be prioritised.
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held, “I am of the considered view that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District.”
Case Number: W.P. NO. 30497 of 2025
Case Title: G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed concern over the "elephantine" pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which not only adversely impacts the Court, but also causes mental agony to the delinquents, thereby, directly affecting the right to a dignified life under Article 21.
In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, “… the number of pendency of disciplinary cases is staggering and such a pendency has a huge judicial impact on this Court on account of writ petitions seeking reliefs for promotion without reference to charge memo, restoration of seniority, retrospective promotions, quashing of disciplinary enquiry for delay, retirement benefits, consequential contempt cases etc. Apart from the judicial impact, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony on the employees on account of delayed conclusion of the disciplinary enquiries, majority of retirement benefits being subject to the outcome of disciplinary enquiries, they have direct impact on the right of retired employee to lead a dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21”
Case Number: W.P. NOs: 24508 and 22832 of 2025
Case Title: ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 28
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside re-appointment of the Director of State's Animal Husbandry Department— (Respondent 4), whose services were reinstated by the State in contravention to the statutory rules, and beyond the age of superannuation, holding that statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions nor give the right to an employer to bypass the prescribed procedure.
Justice Nyapthy Vijay referred to the A.P. State Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1996 and Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which collectively prescribe that appointment to post of Director of Animal Husbandry can be made only by promotion from the cadre of Additional Director. As the re-appointment was effectuated by the State by bypassing a Government Order of 2024— which delineates that proposals for re-employment must be placed before a Screening Committee in a prescribed pro-forma— and sought direct approval from the Chief Minister.
Case Number: W.P.Nos.: 23243 and 23487 of 2025
Case Title: Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted relief to several teachers whose marks made them eligible for the post of School Assistant (SA), but were allotted the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), solely on the ground that they had exercised preference for the latter post in their online applications, holding that merit-cum-roster must be the governing criterion for recruitment and initial preference cannot override claim of more meritorious candidates for appointment to higher posts.
Noting that teachers shape the future of citizenry, and any dilution in quality or selection of less meritorious candidates is not in the interest of the future society, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, "Ideally, the order of preference should be sought after the results so that the candidate is better informed. At the time of application, no individual can be sure of the marks and rank to be secured in the examination. An uninformed preference can never be a ground to restrain a candidate from making an informed preference. The binding nature of a provision on the candidate is only when the preference is conscious and on an informed basis, notwithstanding the language employed in the provision.”