LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 7 - September 13, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208 – 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213

Nominal Index

Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. with connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208

Sri Venkateshwara Association v. The State of A.P. and others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 209

G. Papa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 210

Devineni Avinash & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 211

P. Vanajamma v. P. Mahitha Reddy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 212

State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rendla Subba Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213

Judgement/ Orders

Contractors Can't Claim Interest On Delayed Payments After Failing To Challenge Earlier Orders: AP High Court

Case Title: Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. with connected matters

Case No.: W.P. Nos. 5506, 5608, 5712, 5748, 5781, 8818, 8895, 8978, 9279 and 9730 of 2025.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has barred contractors who executed works under the Andhra Pradesh Government-led water-conservation programme, the Neeru-Chettu Scheme, from reopening claims for interest on delayed contractual payments through fresh writ petitions.

The Court noted that, in the earlier writ proceedings, the petitioners were denied interest but were given liberty to pursue the claim before the appropriate forum. They neither challenged those orders nor availed the remedy indicated. Instead, they filed fresh writ petitions before the High Court seeking interest.

'Suppression Of Material Fact': AP High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Plea Challenging Govt Hospital Diet Tender

Case Title: Sri Venkateshwara Association v. The State of A.P. and others

Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 703 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 209

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that interference by Courts in tender matters has to be minimal, while upholding the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the selection of successful bidders for a diet-supply contract at Government General Hospital, Ongole.

The Court observed that the appellant could not deny having participated in the tender process in accordance with law at all relevant stages. On the merits, the High Court found that the procedure adopted by the authorities could not be termed illegal or arbitrary, particularly since the majority of the qualified bidders had consented to the lottery process. 

Sympathy For Govt Employee Facing Grave Corruption Allegations Will Impair Morality In Department: AP High Court Rejects Promotion Plea

Case Title: G. Papa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 8394 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 210

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee facing grave allegations of corruption and a pending criminal prosecution cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and that sympathy for such an employee would seriously impair the morality in the department.

In doing so, the Court refused to direct consideration of a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for promotion to the post of Joint Director, who had challenged the authorities' decision not to include him in the promotion panel despite being at Sl.No.2 in the seniority list.

The Court observed that promotion is “an incentive conferred on the individual for his service in keeping the interest of the department as the foremost” and is a “mutual duty and obligation.”

Mere Participation In Protest Not Offence: AP High Court Quashes Assault FIR Against YSR Congress Leaders During Political Rally

Case Title: Devineni Avinash & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Case No.: Criminal Petition Nos. 3423 & 3409 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 211

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed FIR against political leaders Yuvajana Sramika Rythu (YSR) Congress Party leaders Devineni Avinash, former MLA Monditoka Jagan Mohana Rao and MLC Monditoka Aruna Kumar over allegations of assault, organizing unlawful assembly, obstructing public servants during “Annadata Poru” rally.

In doing so, the Court underpinned that the mere mention of penal sections without corresponding factual assertions cannot sustain a criminal prosecution and therefore "mere participation in a political rally, without any allegation of assault or criminal force against a public servant, cannot ipso facto attract the rigours of Sections 132, 195(1), 189(3), 223, 285, 292 and 293 read with Section 190 BNS. 

Having examined the material as a whole, the Court held that it failed to establish the necessary nexus between the acts alleged and the statutory ingredients of the offences invoked.

AP High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Appeal, Says Misplaced Certified Order Copy 'Not Sufficient Cause'

Case Title: P. Vanajamma v. P. Mahitha Reddy & Ors.

Case No.: I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in/and Appeal Suit No. 585 of 2025.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 212

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to condone a 110-day delay in an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking specific performance of a contract.

In doing so, the Court rejected the appellant's claim that the certified copy of the trial court's judgment and decree had been misplaced, holding that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Finding that the appellant had failed to act diligently, the High Court rejected the application for condonation and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Land Acquisition | Landowners Can't Suffer Because Govt Failed To Forward Plea For Enhanced Compensation To Civil Court: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that landowners who filed applications seeking reference to civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act cannot be made to suffer for State's inaction in not registering the landowners application or tracing out the same. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213]

In doing so, it dismissed appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an order directing the authorities to refer landowners' claims for enhancement of compensation to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.