LiveLaw Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 - July 19, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130Nominal IndexBuddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others,...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130
Nominal Index
Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121
Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124
Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125
Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126
Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127
A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128
Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP), W.P. No. 12871 of 2025
Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129
N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130
Judgement/ Orders
Case Title: Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 33545 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 121
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after finding that the detaining authority failed to consider multiple bail orders granted to the detenu, holding that bail orders are vital material and their non-consideration vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
The High Court found that the bail orders had not been considered either while passing the detention order or while confirming it. Holding that such non-consideration vitiated the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.
Case Title: Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 15135 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Allowing the plea of a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after finding that the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination had unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to answer a different question.
The Court held that a candidate in a regular qualifying examination cannot be denied a fair opportunity because of a procedural lapse committed by the examining authority.
Case Title: Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 29223 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that partition of a joint family property does not amount to "transfer of property" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and hence such a registered partition deed cannot be cancelled for failure to maintain senior citizen parents, by invoking Section 23 of the Act.
In doing so the court held that while a transfer contemplates passing of an interest in property from one person to another, a partition merely separates rights that already existed; thus the two cannot be equated.
Case Title: M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 20798 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 124
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a party which withdraws a writ petition without obtaining liberty to file a fresh petition cannot subsequently invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction again on the same cause of action, observing that the remedy under Article 226 is deemed to have been abandoned.
Holding that the maintainability of the second writ petition had to be decided before examining the legality of the seigniorage levy, the Court observed that the proper course for the petitioner was to seek review or recall of the earlier order instead of filing a fresh writ petition.
Case Title: Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 26620 of 2024 & Batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorities directing rice millers to replace fortified rice stocks that failed mandatory quality tests, holding that the authorities acted in accordance with the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme and that no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice was made out.
The Court noted that there is no requirement for the presence of rice millers while samples are drawn or tested. The Court further held that the surprise inspections were conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable SOPs and clarified that the respondents had not rejected the petitioners' stocks outright but had only directed replacement of the defective stocks as per the prescribed procedure.
Case Title: Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 22689 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 126
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which an MBBS student discontinues studies for genuine reasons, like financial hardship or health issues, cannot be counted while computing the 4-year limit prescribed for clearing the First Professional exam of the course under Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 (GMER).
In doing so, the Court allowed an MBBS student to continue her course after holding that a literal interpretation of the Regulations would irrationally disqualify students whose temporary break has no bearing on their academic ability or competence.
Case Title: Kunisetty Hymavathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12704 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 127
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to pay land acquisition compensation awarded in 1976, along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award until payment, holding that failure to ensure payment of compensation after taking possession of land violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A.
In doing so, the Court held that once compensation is determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State has a duty to ensure that it is paid to the landowner without requiring any representation or request. Merely keeping the amount in revenue deposits does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation.
Case Title: A. Rajasekhar Gowd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12292 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 128
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order rejecting interim relief cannot be sustained if it does not record any reasons, observing that "reasons are the back bone of every order" and that a one-line, non-speaking order violates settled principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, rejecting an employee's plea for interim relief and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application in accordance with law.
Case Title: Dr. Lay Kanjibhai Paghdar v. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12871 of 2025
Granting interim relief to an M.S. General Surgery student with 78% locomotor disability, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Andhra Medical College to issue provisional course completion certificate and release the original academic documents to enable him to participate in the NEET Super Specialty counselling, earlier denied over lack of attendance.
While doing so, the Court also suo motu impleaded the concerned Professor of General Surgery, who allegedly harassed the petitioner on account of his disability, by repeatedly seeking medical fitness examinations and pressuring him to discontinue the course.
Case Title: Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 8105 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 129
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus writ is ordinarily not maintainable in child custody disputes where a detailed inquiry into the welfare of the minor is required, particularly when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are already pending.
Considering the tender age of the children, their present custody with the maternal grandmother and the pending guardianship proceedings, the Court held that the dispute required a detailed examination of the children's welfare, which could not be undertaken in the summary jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: N.S. Kirana Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 12287 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 130
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that estates authority cannot continue and decide proceedings against deceased persons without their legal representatives being first brought on record, and that such proceedings are void and a nullity in law.
The Court further held that the same authority which passed the original order cannot subsequently hear an appeal against its own decision, as it violates the rule against bias embodied in the maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one should be a judge in their own cause)”.