Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 203

Nominal Index

G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169

Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181

Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

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

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

Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199

Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy @ Srunivasulu & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 200

Y. Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 201

Setty Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 202

Boya Hothuru Alliswamy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 203

Judgments/ Orders 

AP High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation, Says Depreciation Can't Be Deducted On New Spare Parts Used In Repairs

Case Title: G. Jayarami Reddy v. A.V.N. Muralimohan & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 169

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while assessing compensation for damage to a vehicle in a motor accident claim, depreciation should not be deducted during calcuation where new spare parts are necessarily used to restore the vehicle to a roadworthy condition.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the owner of the damaged vehicle is also entitled to compensation for incidental loss of income suffered during the period the vehicle remained under repair.

Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the MACT from Rs. 41,400 to Rs. 1,21,266, comprising Rs. 1,06,266 towards repair expenses and Rs.15,000 towards the loss arising from the inability to use the vehicle for one month. 

S.397(2) CrPC | Order Refusing Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Is Interlocutory, Revision Not Maintainable: AP High Court

Case Title: Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a criminal revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

The Court clarified that such an order does not determine the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Dismissing the criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum.

The Bench observed:

“In the present case, the order under challenge pertains to the dismissal of an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Such an order is purely interlocutory in nature and does not determine or affect any substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. squarely applies, which unequivocally provides that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order.”

Unregistered Sale Agreement Delivering Possession Can't Be Marked As Evidence Without Payment Of Stamp Duty: AP High Court

Case Title: Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an agreement of sale specifically recites delivery of possession, the document attracts stamp duty and penalty, and cannot be received in evidence unless it is duly stamped.

Dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda upheld the trial court's order refusing to mark an unregistered agreement of sale-cum-possession as an exhibit in a suit for specific performance. 

The court observed:

"But in the case on hand, the instrument is named as “agreement of salecum-possession”. Much less, the plaintiff/petitioner also pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property not only in the plaint but also in his chief evidence affidavit before the Court at trial. Therefore, since there is a specific recital with regard to delivery of the possession of the property under an agreement of sale, the levy of stamp duty and penalty is always in relation to the description of the document and levy cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties. 

The levy of the stamp duty and penalty is always in relation to the document which is to be marked before the Court and such levy cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties. Unless the document is sufficiently stamped it cannot be marked even for collateral purpose."

AP High Court Asks Endowments Department To Decide Representation For Temple Trustee Post After Hearing Applicant

Case Title: Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Endowment Department to decide a representation seeking appointment as a member of a Temple Trust Board after affording the applicant a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Disposing of a writ petition, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava issued directions to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, to consider the petitioner's pending representation.

The Court observed:

"Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

Failure To Place Relevant Material Before District Magistrate Vitiates Preventive Detention Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after observing the relevant material was not placed before the District Magistrate while passing the detention order.

Holding that such non-consideration vitiates the detention, the Court set aside both the detention order and the Government's confirmation order, while leaving it open to the authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi directed the immediate release of the detenu, if he was not required in any other case.

The Court observed:

"The Detenu shall be set at liberty immediately, if he is not required in any other case. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non-consideration of the relevant material which was not brought to the notice of the District Collector, we provide that the respondent-District Collector shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, in case any order of detention has to be passed afresh, the period of detention shall not exceed in total 12 months including the period already served pursuant to the impugned detention orders."

Deceased's Car Hitting Offending Vehicle From Behind Not Contributory Negligence In Absence Of Evidence: AP High Court

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Enhancing a motor accident award, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that deceased's car dashing into the offending vehicle from behind is not enough for Insurance Company to claim contributory negligence in absence of rebuttal evidence particularly of the offending vehicle's driver.

Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurer, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased marine engineer from Rs. 41.10 lakh to Rs. 62.77 lakh after finding that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third towards personal expenses, failed to award future prospects, and applied an incorrect multiplier.

Retrospective Change In Probation Date Can't Be Used To Alter Settled Seniority, Violates Service Rules & Natural Justice: AP High Court

Case Title: Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee's seniority has attained finality after rendering long years of service, the authorities cannot revise it by changing the date of probation after a long lapse of time.

The Court further held that such action, taken without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, is hit by the principles of natural justice and violates the applicable service rules.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a Senior Assistant of a temple, Justice Balaji Medamalli set aside the revised seniority list that retrospectively changed the petitioner's date of probation, resulting in his juniors being promoted ahead of him and recovery proceedings being initiated against him.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 'Stale' Grounds, Ignored Bail Orders

Case Title: Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

Reiterating that preventive detention is an exceptional measure, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that it cannot be invoked on the basis of stale criminal cases that have lost their "live and proximate link" with the need for detention.

The Court also held that where the detenu has already been granted bail in the criminal cases forming the basis of the detention order, the detaining authority must consider those bail orders, as their non-consideration vitiates the authority's subjective satisfaction.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi quashed the detention order and the State Government's confirmation order and directed detenu's release if he was not required in any other case.

'Can't Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings': AP High Court Sets Aside Status Quo Order On Mutation Entries, Says No Such Prayer Was Made

Case Title: V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

Granting partial relief in a land dispute, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings by directing parties to maintain status quo regarding mutation entries when no such relief has been sought in the writ petition.

The Court, however, reiterated that no person can be dispossessed except by following due process of law.

Allowing the writ appeal in part, the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta set aside the Single Judge's direction directing maintenance of status quo over mutation entries in the revenue records.

Regularisation Of Compassionate Appointee Must Be From Date Of Acquiring Qualification, Not Initial Appointment: AP High Court

Case Title: R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors. and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the revision of the date of regularisation of a Junior Assistant appointed on compassionate grounds, holding that an employee who did not possess the prescribed educational qualification on the date of appointment cannot claim regularisation from the date of initial appointment.

In doing so, the Court noted that regularisation can only take effect from the date on which the employee acquires the requisite qualification.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Nyapathy Vijay in a batch of two writ petitions. While the first petition challenged the revision of the petitioner's date of regularisation, the second sought consideration of his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

The Court observed:

"The appointment of Petitioner as Junior Assistant is on compassionate grounds on condition and as the Petitioner acquired degree qualification on 10.12.2019, the service of the Petitioner was regularized with effect from that date. The contention of the Petitioner that the service of the Petitioner is to be regularized from the date of initial appointment i.e. 07.11.2017 is to be accepted, that would amount to validating of appointment of Petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant without having requisite educational qualification. The same would be contrary to the Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. It is too well known that educational qualification to a post is an absolute requirement and no appointment can be validated without the said qualification."

Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Be Used To Enforce Ex-Parte Custody Order Obtained Without Notice To Mother: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to enforce an ex parte custody order, after noting that the custody decree had been obtained without notice to the mother after the father furnished his own address as the mother's address instead of disclosing her actual address.

The Court further held that where a statutory remedy for enforcement is available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into that of an executing court.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the father's habeas corpus petition seeking implementation of an ex parte custody order in his favour. 

The Court observed:

“In the facts of the present case, the writ of Habeas Corpus deserves not to be issued based on the order dated 05.06.2025. That very order has been obtained by not furnishing correct address of the respondent No.4 resulting into an order of custody in favour of petitioner behind the back of the respondent No.4. 

The basis of the writ petition is an ex parte order against respondent No.4. It is so evident from the order itself. The respondent No.4-mother has already applied for setting aside that order of custody and the application is pending. So, at this stage, the order of dated 05.06.2025 has not attained finality. From the material on record, we are of the considered view that not only the order of custody is an ex parte order but without notice to the respondent No.4.”

Employees Can't Suffer For Employer's Record-Keeping Lapses: AP High Court Directs EPFO To Reconsider Retirees' Plea For Higher Pension

Case Title: Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Granting relief to retired employees seeking higher pension, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot reject claims under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 solely for non-production of Form 6A, challans or other employer records, particularly in respect of periods prior to 2010.

The Court observed that employees cannot be made to suffer for lapses in employer record-keeping or deficiencies in the EPFO's own records.

Disposing of the writ petition, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda remanded the petitioners' applications to the EPFO for fresh consideration and directed the authorities to verify all available records instead of rejecting the claims on technical grounds.

Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

Case Title: Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after holding that the continued detention of the detenu became illegal due to the State Government's unexplained delay in deciding his representation for release.

In doing so the court said that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering a representation violates the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by the detenu's wife challenging his preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

AP High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Despite Invalidity Of One Ground, Cites Severability Clause U/S 6 PIT-NDPS Act

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

Relying on the severability clause under Section 6 of thePrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that failure to satisfy the mandatory triple-test in respect of one of six grounds of detention does not invalidate the detention order as a whole. 

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta in a writ petition filed by the wife of the detenu seeking his release from preventive detention.

The Court observed:

"In the present case, the impugned Order of Detention has been passed on six grounds i.e., two or more grounds. Such Order of Detention shall be deemed to have been passed separately on each of such grounds from Ground Nos.1 to 6. So, even if it be taken that the Order cannot be sustained on Ground No.6, for non-consideration of three requirements with respect to the detenu being in judicial custody, it cannot be held that the detaining authority had not satisfied on the other grounds, only because of no satisfaction recorded relating to Ground No.6. It shall be deemed that the State Government or the detaining authority had made the Order of Detention after being satisfied on the remaining grounds.

Order of Detention shall not be deemed to be invalid for the remaining grounds and it shall be deemed that the Order of Detention has been made under Section 3 (1) of PIT NDPS Act 1988 after being satisfied with reference to the remaining 5 grounds." 

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 

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.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in a writ petition filed by four farmers of Kothapalem Village, Vizianagaram District, who depended on the Kannamnaidu Water Pond for irrigation.

'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

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 judgment was delivered by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in a writ petition filed by a resident of Parampeta Village, Vizianagaram District, who intended to establish a small flour mill to earn his livelihood.

The Court observed:

"...it is crystal clear that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if there is any violation of the same, it affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Constitution of India. In view of the significance & importance attached to electricity as detailed above, right from the Vedic period till the present 32 contemptuous generation i.e., Gen-Z and Alpha., the usage of electricity in multiple dimensions basic fundamental thing for minute to minute work"

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

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 Division Bench presided over by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta delivered the judgment. The court observed:

“The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order of the detaining authority, the arrest cannot be made immediately and it should be only after the opinion of the Advisory Board. For such submission, neither any provision has been placed before us nor any authority of law. 

None of the provisions make the report of the Advisory Board, a condition precedent for making arrest of the detenu with respect to whom the order of detention has been passed or to be detained pursuant to the order of detention. The report of the Advisory Board, is must for the State Government to consider the confirmation of the order of detention, or to release depending on the report of the Advisory Board.”

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

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. 

Granting relief to the doctor who claimed to be himself a victim of the alleged cheating, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed:

“So far as allegations in respect of the BUDS Act, 2019 is concerned, as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, applicability of the said provisions are in question, more particularly, in view of the specific language enunciated under Section 3(b) of the said Act, i.e., the petitioner will not come under the purview of Deposit Taker.

Another facet in the instant case is accepting the entire accusation, except the offence punishable under Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the BUDS Act, all the offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven (07) years. Prima facie there is any amount of ambiguity as to whether Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 would attract to the subject crime or not. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 on certain condition.” 

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

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, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad 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.

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

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.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“A bare perusal of Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971, shows that the appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Clause (a) provides that where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, appeal lies to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court.

The expression used in Section 19(1) of the Act,1971 is in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, which is most relevant in determining the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Act...

The order under challenge is not one imposing punishment upon the respondents in the contempt proceedings. It is an order closing the contempt case recording that the orders passed in writ petition No.937 of 2023 dated 10.07.2024-have been complied with. We are of the considered view that an appeal would not lie under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order under challenge"

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

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.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti examined whether the dimensions of a mobile phone were required to be declared under Rule 6(1)(f) and held that the requirement is not absolute. The Court observed:

“A perusal of the provisions extracted supra, while Section 18 mandates only those declarations as may be prescribed, Rule 4 requires that every pre-packed commodity leaving the manufacturer‟s premises must bear the prescribed declaration. Rule 6(1)(f) outlines where the sizes of the commodity contained in the package are relevant. 

A conjoint reading of the provisions referred to supra demonstrates that the obligation to declare the dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement. The requirement arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant.”

AP High Court Sets Aside Gift Deed Restoration Order As Subsequent Transferees Were Not Heard

Case Title: Savari Eswaramma v. Parigala Anjinamma & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 190

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge order that had restored a registered gift deed, ruling that writ proceedings cannot adversely affect the rights of third-party purchasers without impleading them and giving them an opportunity of hearing.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed:

“We are of the considered view that, in view of the pendency of the suit between the parties i.e., the writ petitioner(daughter)(plaintiff) and the writ appellant (mother)(defendant No.1), along with subsequent transferees (defendant Nos.2 to 5) from the mother (defendant No.1) and the said material aspect not having been disclosed in the writ petition, and those defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the suit having no opportunity of hearing in the writ petition, as they were not impleaded, but are being adversely affected behind their back, the impugned judgment cannot be maintained.”

Pendency Of Civil Suit Does Not Bar Mutation Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Makam Sumith v. Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 191

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to title does not bar revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers to conduct mutation proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

In doing so, the Court clarified that while the Civil Court's declaration of title would ultimately govern the revenue entries, a pending title suit by itself does not prevent revenue authorities from exercising jurisdiction under the 1971 Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed:

“We are of the view that the pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar to proceedings under the Act, 1971. If any person has a bona fide dispute regarding title to the property, it is always open to such person to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court; however, the pendency of the suit proceedings, by itself, does not prohibit the revenue authorities from exercising their statutory powers and jurisdictions under the Act, 1971.”

Accused's Right To Silence Can't Be Stretched To Avoid Investigation, But Police Cannot Resort To Endless Summoning: AP High Court

Case Title: Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 192

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, but it does not absolve the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in an investigation when lawfully called upon to do so. 

A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao examined the scope of the accused's right to silence and the power of the Investigating Officer to require his appearance during investigation. The Court observed:

“The right to silence, therefore, cannot be stretched to the extent of absolving the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in the investigative process when lawfully called upon to do so. There exists a fine but discernible distinction between the right not to incriminate oneself and the duty to appear, when required, before the Investigating Officer for the purposes of identification, clarification, or confrontation with material already gathered. The former is inviolable, the latter is a reasonable regulatory requirement necessary for the investigation to reach its logical culmination.”

Andhra Pradesh Goondas Act | 12-Day Period For Govt Approval Begins After Detention Order Is Passed: High Court

Case Title: Chintapalli Satyavati v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 193

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the 12-day period for approval of a preventive detention order under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers, 1986, begins from the day after the detention order is made, thereby excluding the date of the order from computation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi delivered the judgment. The Court observed:

“The language of Section 3(3) is very clear. The order shall not remain in force if it is not approved within the period of 12 days after the making of the order of detention. The expression 'after the making thereof', indicates that the period of 12 days is to be counted after the passing of the order of detention. So, it is clear that the date of the order of detention is to be excluded.

In the present case, the order of detention was passed on 19.09.2025. When counted from 20.09.2025, the order of approval is within the period of 12 days under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1986. The order of approval was therefore passed within 12 days. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the detenue is entitled to be released under Section 3(3) as the order of approval was passed after 12 days cannot be accepted and is rejected.”

District Collector Can't Challenge Govt Order, Bound By State's Hierarchical Decision: AP High Court

Case Title: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 194

Dismissing pleas by Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) and the District Collector challenging a GO granting ryotwari patta rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the District Collector designated by government to perform statutory duties, cannot file a writ petition against the Government's own revisional order.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed, while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Roop Chand vs State of Punjab:

“An Officer designated by the Government to perform statutory duties cannot file a writ petition to challenge the Government's own orders, as the Officer is fundamentally bound by the State's hierarchical decision. This is clearly impermissible in law besides being an antithesis to the 'doctrine of finality' in view of the judgment referred to supra”

The Court said that “delegate” means little more than an agent, adding that an agent does not exercise personal powers, but rather acts on behalf of the principal.

Witness Attesting Allegedly Fraudulent Document Not Criminally Liable Without Specific Allegations: AP High Court

Case Title: Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere attestation of an allegedly fraudulent document, without any specific allegation attributing an active role to the attesting witnesses in the alleged offence, cannot by itself make them criminally liable.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:

“As could be seen, the Courts have consistently held that the attesters cannot be held liable for merely attesting the documents. 

After hearing both the parties, this Court accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither in the F.I.R nor in the charge sheet, which is filed after a complete investigation, except bald allegations that the petitioners stood as attesters to the document No.2820/2012, dated 23.04.2012, nothing else is stated and the allegations are omnibus and does not constitute any offence.”

“As per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9.”

Appeal Against Reference Court Decree Under Land Acquisition Act Does Not Lie Under Section 96 CPC: AP High Court

Case Title: P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal against a decree passed by the Reference Court in proceedings under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable only under Section 54 of the Act and not under Section 96 CPC. 

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta in a Land Acquisition Appeal where the maintainability of the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act arose for consideration, following a Section 30 reference made by the Special Deputy Collector.

The Court observed:

"Insofar as an award or any part of an award made in proceedings under the L.A. Act is concerned, the Legislature has specifically provided the remedy under Sections 18 and 30 of the L.A. Act. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that decrees passed by the Reference Court under Section 30 should be appealable under Section 96 of C.P.C., there would have been no necessity to enact a special appellate provision under Section 54 of the L.A. Act. The very incorporation of Section 54 demonstrates the legislative intent that appeals arising from adjudications made in proceedings under the Act should be governed exclusively by the special provision.

AP High Court Fines Mother ₹50,000 For Suppressing Grant Of Custody To Father Pursuant To Mutual Settlement

Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 197

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable where the children are in the custody of their father pursuant to a mutually agreed settlement between the parents. 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi dismissed with costs the mother's petition seeking production and restoration of custody of her two minor children. The Court found that the parents had agreed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the children would remain in the father's custody.

The Court observed:

“Once it was agreed mutually between the petitioner and the R5 that the custody of the children shall remain solely with the husband, the children cannot be said to be in any illegal custody of the R5-father. 

The representation was made without disclosing the aforesaid settlement; Memorandum of Understanding and the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.9564 of 2025 by the High Court for the State of Telangana, in which the Memorandum of Understanding was made as part of the order. The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts.”

Govt Can't Alter Merit List Recommended By Selection Committee, Appoint Consumer Commission President Of Its Choice: AP High Court

Case Title: Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order appointing President of Vijayawada's District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the State Government cannot independently alter the order of merit or appoint a candidate of its choice by overlooking the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli held that under Rule 6(11) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the State Government's role is confined to verifying the credentials and antecedents of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, and does not extend to altering the order of merit.

Mere 'Reading Out' Grounds Of Arrest To Accused Only During Production Before Trial Court Violates Article 22(1) Mandate: AP High Court

Case Title: Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. with connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely reading out the remand report, case record, order of arrest and grounds of arrest to an accused at the time of production before the Special Judge does not amount to sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). 

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela examined whether the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest had been complied with. The Court observed:

“From the above observations of the learned Special Judge, this Court construes that the arrest of the petitioner/accused No.4, was made only at 04:20 P.M. in the Court and the accused No.4 received the copies of the case record and was informed about the grounds of arrest, which cannot be understood as legitimate and in consonance with the law of the land.

In view of the above precedents, which are constitutional guardrails, it can be held, without any hesitation that the order of the Special Judge that the detailed remand report/case record, the order of arrest, and the grounds of arrest contained in the remand order were read over to the petitioner does not amount to sufficient compliance and it totally violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which attains high constitutional and legal significance.”

No Direct Evidence Of Murder Needed When Kidnapping, Last Seen & Swift Recovery Of Body Form Complete Chain: AP High Court

Case Title: Tirumanuyam Srinivasulu Reddy @ Srunivasulu & Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 200

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where the time between the kidnapping of a minor girl and recovery of her dead body was short, the prosecution could not be expected to produce direct evidence of the actual commission of murder.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunarajan dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

The Court noted that the accused had offered no explanation for what happened to the deceased after she was last seen in their company. Referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the High Court observed:

“Once the prosecution established that the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of both the accused, the burden shifted on them, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain the circumstances in which they parted company with the deceased or as to what subsequently happened to the kidnapped minor girl.

Thus, the prosecution has established that both the accused kidnapped the deceased, that the deceased was last seen alive in their exclusive company, that both the accused were apprehended by P.W.18 near the scene of offence on 22.12.2014, that the dead body of the deceased and the incriminating material objects were recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements, and that neither of the accused offered any explanation regarding the fate of the deceased, though the relevant facts were especially within their knowledge.”

SC/ST Act | Eyewitness To Caste Abuse Must Be Independent And Impartial: AP High Court

Case Title: Y. Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 201

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that while examining an allegation of caste-based abuse under the SC/ST Act, the requirement of “public view” must be considered in the context of whether the alleged eyewitnesses were independent and impartial. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy examined the circumstances surrounding the complaint, including the antecedents of the three persons cited by the complainant as eyewitnesses and the requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act.

The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against a Sub-Inspector and a Constable arising from a Head Constable's complaint alleging caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation.

AP High Court Upholds Attempt To Murder Conviction, Says Simple Injuries By Itself Does Not Negate Offence If Intention Proved

Case Title: Setty Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 202

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the nature of injuries sustained by a victim cannot, by itself, determine whether an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC is made out, particularly when the manner of assault and the weapon used establishes the requisite intention or knowledge that death was likely to be caused.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the accused and confirmed the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court.

The Court observed:

“Let me understand whether the petitioner had no intention to cause death of P.W.2. The fact suggests that the petitioner attacked P.W.2 with knife and inflicted eleven blows on his neck, which is undoubtedly a vital part of the human body. Causing one or two blows at the neck of a person itself is sufficient to cause death of that person. 

In this particular case, at the time of causing blow, the victim has managed to save himself from the blow and petitioner, which resulted the petitioner to cause further more blow; by that way, eleven blows are there. There is no explanation from the defence side, why eleven numbers of blow of knife was caused on the neck of P.W.2 in an sudden provocation. Thus, the argument lack of intention of petitioner to kill P.W.2 is not justified.”

Identity, Homicidal Death Established After Body Exhumed From Tomb, But Circumstantial Chain Incomplete: AP High Court Acquits Four

Case Title: Boya Hothuru Alliswamy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 203

The Andhra Pradesh High Court while ordering acquittal in a murder case observed that although the identity of the deceased and the homicidal nature of her death stood established after her body was exhumed from a tomb, the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court accordingly acquitted four accused who had been convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 62-year-old woman.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court. It observed:

“P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased deposed that she identified all the belongings of her mother at the time of exhumation viz. Saree, blouse, petticoat, slippers, gold colour dollar having face of Lord Venkateswara, a cut piece of gold colour chain and a pair of sky blue colour chappals in the presence of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the other witnesses etc. Therefore, the identity of the deceased and nature of death of the deceased being homicidal are clear. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to that extent are fit for concurrence.”