LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: 10 August - 16 August, 2026

Nominal Index

Boddusatyavathi and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 183

Kadagala Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 184

Smt. Sivakumar Meenakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 185

Dr Rayagada Santosh Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 186

Nara Chandra Babu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr with connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 187

Kasi Raju, S/o Kava Raju (Died) & 19 Others v. Arun Kumar & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 188

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 189

Judgement/ Orders

AP High Court Invokes Teachings From Hinduism, Christianity & Islam To Reinforce Protection Of Water Bodies, Halts Sand Excavation From Pond

Case Title: Boddusatyavathi and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: WP No. 12895 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 183

Invoking teachings from Hinduism, Christianity, Islam which recognize water as a "common heritage" reflecting the essence of Public Trust Doctrine, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed District Collector's proceedings permitting excavation of sand and gravel from a village pond for National Highway construction.

The Court held that excavation of minor minerals cannot be permitted by bypassing the statutory procedure prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

'Right To Electricity Part Of Article 21': AP High Court Quashes Permanent Rejection Of Mill's Application For Power Connection

Case Title: Kadagala Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 8103 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 184

Holding that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the permanent rejection of a flour mill owner's application for a new electricity connection and directed the distribution licensee to process it as per the Electricity Act provisions.

The Court held that even if an electricity connection application is incomplete, the licensee must assign specific reasons for its rejection. Rejecting an application by merely marking it “Permanently Rejected” on the online portal, without reasons, was held to be illegal and a transgression of the principles of natural justice.

Advisory Board's Opinion Not Condition Precedent For Arrest Pursuant To Preventive Detention Order: AP High Court

Case Title: Smt. Sivakumar Meenakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 6381 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 185

Obtaining an Advisory Board's opinion is not a condition precedent for arresting/detaining a person pursuant to a prevention detention order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held while clarifying that the Board's report is required for the State Government to decide whether to confirm or revoke the detention order.

The High Court noted that neither the provisions of the 1986 Act nor any authority placed before it made the Advisory Board's opinion a pre-condition for arrest pursuant to a detention order. The Court explained that Sections 10 and 11 deal with reference to and procedure before the Advisory Board, while Section 12 provides for the action to be taken on its report.

Application Of BUDS Act Prima Facie Doubtful Where Accused Is Not Deposit Taker: AP High Court

Case Title: Dr Rayagada Santosh Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4501 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 186

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the application of offences under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 is prima facie doubtful where the accused is not a deposit taker.

In doing so the court granted anticipatory bail to a doctor booked for offence of Cheating under IPC and Section 21(1)(2)(3) BUDS Act which prescribes punishment for offences relating to the unlawful acceptance or solicitation of deposits. It states that any deposit taker who solicits deposits in contravention of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment not less than 1 year extendable to 5 years and with fine not less than Rs. 2 Lakh extendable to Rs. 10 Lakh.

Ruling Party Lodging Criminal Cases Against Opposition Leaders A 'Disturbing Feature' Of Indian Politics: AP High Court

Case Title: Nara Chandra Babu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr with connected case

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 1762 & 1763 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 187

The registration of criminal cases against opposition leaders by ruling party governments, and vice versa, has become a disturbing feature of Indian politics, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed while quashing an FIR against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former Minister Ponguru Narayana in Amravati Land Pooling case. 

The court held that the FIR was vitiated by mala fides and political vendetta. It underscored that elected governments must be free to make policy decisions, including decisions that are innovative, controversial or even incorrect, without the fear of criminal prosecution merely because a subsequent government disagrees with those policies.

Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order Closing Contempt Case On Recording Compliance: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Kasi Raju, S/o Kava Raju (Died) & 19 Others v. Arun Kumar & Another

Case No.: Contempt Appeal (SR) No. 4482 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 188

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. 

In doing so, the Court held that an order closing contempt proceedings after recording compliance with the writ court's directions cannot be challenged under Section 19 of the Act.

AP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Samsung Over Non-Declaration Of Mobile Phone Dimensions Under Legal Metrology Rules

Case Title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19262 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 189

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mobile phone manufacturers need not declare the dimensions of their devices on the package unless the size of the commodity is “relevant” under Rule 6(1)(f) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.

The case stemmed from Samsung India Electronics Private Limited's challenge to the action of the Legal Metrology authorities. 

The Court rejected the Legal Metrology authorities' contention that screen size becomes “relevant” merely because it may influence consumer preference or pricing. It held that the screen is only a component of the mobile phone and cannot be treated as a separate commodity requiring an independent declaration of its size.