LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 241– 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 253
Nominal Index
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
Judgement/ Orders
Case Title: Yanda Dharma Rao v. The General Manager and Others; Yanda Dharma Rao v. The Chairman and Managing Director and Others
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 2869 and 25895 of 2023
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.
In doing so, the Court also set aside the consequential show-cause notice, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were unsustainable as they had been initiated beyond the prescribed period.
Under Rule 61(4)(2)(b) of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, disciplinary proceedings not instituted while an employee was in service cannot be instituted after retirement in respect of an event that took place more than four years before such institution.
Case Title : Saradindu Chakravarty v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : W.P. No. 19098 of 2025
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.
The Court made the observations while setting aside the Commission's proceedings, in which it concluded that the police had registered a false FIR against a complainant and recommended constituting a Joint Committee to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the cases filed against him.
Case Title: Perivemula Venkateswarlu and Another v. Mediga Anjaiah
Case No.: C.M.A. Nos. 317 and 340 of 2022
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.
It also declined to grant status quo without determining who was in possession immediately before the suit was instituted. The Court further flagged that the plaintiff had filed the suit nearly 12 years after the alleged agreement without explaining the delay.
The observations came while the Court was deciding two appeals filed by the defendants against temporary injunctions granted in a suit for specific performance. One order restrained them from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged possession, while the other prohibited them from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.
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
Case Number : W.P. No. 23708 of 2026
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 the Court 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.
Case Title : Tadisetti Tirupatamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Case Number : W.P. No. 31325 of 2024
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, the Court 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
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14117 of 2026
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.
Case Title : Yarragorla Itukanalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number : W.P. No. 18425 of 2026
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 Court noted that under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, a person may approach the Superintendent of Police if the police refuse to record information about a cognizable offence. If the grievance remains unresolved, the person may seek an investigation order from the Magistrate under Section 175(3). Sections 210 and 223 govern the Magistrate's cognizance of offences and complaints, respectively.
Case Title : Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purama Raghavamma and Others
Case Number : C.M.A. No. 486 of 2010
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.
Case Title : G. Abdul Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number : Criminal Revision Case No. 1473 of 2009
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).
The Court made these observations while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging his conviction for cruelty against his wife. Although the trial court convicted him under Section 498-A IPC, the appellate court upheld his conviction while acquitting his mother of the charges under the same provision.
Case Title : A. Amaranadh Babu v. Marreddy Anjaneya Reddy and Another
Case Number : Criminal Revision Case No. 493 of 2008
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.
Section 138 of the NI Act deals with cheque dishonour for insufficiency of funds. Proviso (b) requires the payee to issue a written demand notice to the drawer seeking payment of the cheque amount.
Applying this requirement, the Court observed that the demand notice in the present case sufficiently complied with the statutory requirements, even though the cheque amount was not repeated in its concluding paragraph.
Case Title : Rai Pavithra v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Case Number : W.P. No. 6491 of 2026
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.
Upon examining the record, the High Court noted that neither bail order had been considered. Although the second bail order was granted after the proposal was submitted, it preceded the detention order but was not forwarded to the detaining authority.
The Court accordingly set aside the detention of a man who had been granted bail in two cases under the NDPS Act.
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
Case Number : W.P. No. 13524 of 2026
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.
Case Title : Gunakala Sivaiah and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number : W.P. No. 24395 of 2026 and batch
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, the Court 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.