Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 204 - 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

Nominal Index

Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 204

Bethala Jaya Raju (Died) & Ors. v. Bethala Manikyal Rao, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 205

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 206

G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207

Yellaboina Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 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

M/s. Anjani Stone Crusher v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 214

The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor District & Others v. B. Narasimha Raju, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 215

N. Sri Rama Prasad and another v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 216

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vellanki Lakshmi & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 217

Smt. Thota Rajya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 218

Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 219

Balagam Sri Vijaya Bhargavi v. Regional Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 220

Dr. U. Anudeep v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 221

Bommali Ashajyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 222

M. Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 223

Metta Appana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 224

Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

B. Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Other, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

Judgments/ Orders This Month

JJ Act | AP High Court Orders Release Of Minor Produced Before Magistrate As Adult, Imposes ₹10,000 Cost On SHO

Case Title: Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 204

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the rescue of a minor boy who was allegedly treated as an adult by the police and produced before a regular Magistrate, directing his immediate release from judicial custody and holding that the remand order was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction.

In doing so it imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on the SHO of the concerned police station.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by father of the minor 17-year-old boy, challenging the arrest and remand of his minor son, in connection with a criminal case.

The Court noted:

“While it is the duty of the respondent-police officials to verify the exact date of birth of the petitioner's son with reference to the material obtained by them, this Court, is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition was found to be not clear to concerned police. Even the learned Junior Civil Judge (FAC) is expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand.” 

Declaration Of Title In Immovable Property Suits Governed By Article 65 Limitation Act, Not Article 58: AP High Court

Case Title: Bethala Jaya Raju (Died) & Ors. v. Bethala Manikyal Rao

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 205

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a claim for declaration of title concerning immovable property is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and not the three-year limitation period under Article 58, where the suit is not one seeking declaration simpliciter.

In doing so, the Court upheld the order permitting the plaintiff to amend a pending suit concerning immovable property to incorporate a prayer for declaration of title, holding that the proposed amendment was not barred by limitation merely because it was sought after seven years.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the defendants, finding no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment.

The Court observed:

“Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, in a suit relating to immovable property, Part V of the Limitation Act would apply, viz, Article 65 but not Article 58. In the case at hand, the suit was initially filed seeking a perpetual injunction in respect of immovable property. Pending the suit, after seven years, the interlocutory application was filed seeking amendment, one for declaration, and as the same is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Article 58 of the Act does not apply. In such a scenario, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation merits no consideration and falls to the ground.”

AP High Court Acquits Husband In Dowry Harassment & Cruelty Case Citing Sister's Acquittal Based On Same Evidence

Case Title: X v. Y 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 206

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a husband in a dowry harassment and cruelty case, holding that his conviction could not be sustained on the same evidence on which his sister who was facing identical allegations was acquitted.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“It appears that the prosecution case was initiated on the basis of the report of de facto complainant, wherein A.1 and A.2 were both arrayed as main perpetrators of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It was specifically alleged that A.1, at the instigation of A.2, subjected the petitioner to mental cruelty and demanded dowry.

'Prima Facie Case Made Out': AP High Court Refuses To Quash Perjury, Cheating Case Against Retired Bank Manager Over ₹50 Lakh Debt Dispute

Case Title: G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute over Rs. 50 lakh borrowed by a retired bank manager and his wife against a promissory note and mortgage of three title deeds. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 207]

The Court made the observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising from a complaint alleging perjury, filing of a false case, cheating and fraudulent prevention of recovery of debt.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the petition filed by the retired bank manager and his father-in-law. They were accused, along with the bank manager's wife, of colluding to file a false case to delay the cheque dishonour proceedings initiated by the complainant's mother.

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

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. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 208]

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.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti was dealing with a batch of ten writ petitions filed by contractors seeking interest at 6% per annum on the amounts allegedly paid to them after delay. 

The Court examined the contractual terms, noting that the agreements incorporated the Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications (APSS). Clause 69 of the APSS barred contractors from claiming interest on payments in arrears or amounts due upon final settlement. The agreements also provided specific mechanisms for dispute resolution.

'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

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.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya dismissed the writ appeal, finding that the appellant had suppressed the filing of an earlier writ petition concerning the same tender process which was dismissed, a material fact that ought to have been disclosed.

The Court observed:

“In the given factual matrix, learned Single Bench correctly held that there is suppression of material fact by writ petitioner. We do not find any merit in the plea raised by learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner that non-disclosure of Writ Petition No.27573 of 2025 is not material and pertains to a separate cause of action. It may be that writ petitioner in the said petition was seeking extension of earlier contract in its favor, however, fact remains that said writ petition was actuated by floating of subsequent tender dated 23.09.2025, and that writ petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings subsequent to the said tender. It is indeed a material fact, which should have been mentioned in the present proceedings.

It is further to be noted at this stage that on earlier occasion, such a course of action had duly been adopted and was never objected to by writ petitioner, who had in fact benefited from the same. Though the writ petition could have been dismissed merely on the ground of suppression of facts, learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that procedure adopted cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary and especially keeping in view that there was consent of majority of the qualified bidders. It is correctly held by learned Single Bench that interference of Courts in tender matters has to be minimal.”

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.

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.

Emphasising that an employee facing serious allegations cannot be treated on par with employees having clean and unblemished service records, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:

“One-dimensional sympathy for the employee facing grave allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public money etc., would seriously impair the morality in the department. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. In the opinion of this Court, the promotion of individuals facing grave charges will have a demoralising effect on honest persons working in the department and normalise wrongful acts.

The directions to consider individuals facing serious allegations for promotion would only open another avenue to pursue promotion under the cover "consider" orders and such an avenue should be nipped in the bud. The usual plea of delay in conclusion is of no avail in cases of this nature as there would be inevitable delay in conclusion of criminal cases on account of various dynamics and strategies employed at the trial and there is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion.”

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

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.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao was dealing with pleas seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from the “Annadata Poru” rally.

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.

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.

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.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that the principle of adopting a “liberal approach” in condoning delay cannot override statutory limitation when the party is found negligent or lacking in due diligence. The Court noted:

“From the aforesaid paragraph, the cause taken is that certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was received was misplaced and then extra copy was asked and the same was provided on 18.09.2025. So that took time resulting into delay. We have seen the certified copy annexed to the memo of appeal that was applied on 10.04.2025 and became ready on 14.05.2025 and was received on 14.05.2025. There is no proof of getting another extra copy. In fact the same copy has been filed which was applied on 10.04.2025.

We find, the cause stated is not sufficient for the delay of 110 days. Consequently, the appellant not being diligent in filing the appeal, no case for condonation of delay is made out.”

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

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rendla Subba Reddy & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 213

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.

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.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi held that the landowners could not be made to suffer merely because the authorities failed to register their application or subsequently failed to trace it in their records.

Illegal Mining: AP High Court Upholds State's Power To Impose Penalties Without Criminal Trial

Case Title: M/s. Anjani Stone Crusher v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others & connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 214

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the authority of departmental officials to levy monetary penalties, seigniorage fee and other charges for illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals under Rules 26 and 34 of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, without a criminal trial.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati considered, in a batch of writ petitions and appeals, whether monetary penalties under Rules 26 and 34 could be imposed by authorised departmental officers or only by a competent criminal court under the MMDR Act.

The Court observed:

“Power to impose penalty, seigniorage fee, market value of the mineral is clearly within the purview of the departmental official as specified. It is only the aspect of imposition of imprisonment if so stipulated by the department that necessary steps would have to be taken for filing of the complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction for necessary action. It is a settled position that Court should attempt to harmonize the provision in a given factual matrix by lending such interpretation that the provision itself does not become a dead letter or a useless one, rather it upholds the legislative intent to take necessary steps for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.”

Govt Employee Can't Seek Regularization Of Prolonged Absence As Medical Leave Without Filing Leave Application: AP High Court

Case Title: The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (RWS) Division, Chittoor District & Others v. B. Narasimha Raju

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 215

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which a government employee remained absent without submitting any leave application could not be treated as medical leave, and that he was not entitled to payment for that period.

In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta partly allowed a 2006 petition filed by the State authorities challenging an order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directing regularisation of a government employee's prolonged absence from service. 

The Court observed:

“Thus, it is aptly clear that petitioner/applicant was absent from his duties since 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 without any leave application or without any reason of his medical illness. There are no reasons to believe that applicant was too ill to write a leave application in the entire period of absence. Thus, the learned Tribunal, while deciding such issue, has lost sight to look into the entire aspect to understand that the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. We make it clear that since applicant was absent from his duties without any leave application or that, as he was not medically unfit at that period of time to write a letter of leave, thus, the period from 01.06.1985 to 16.07.1987 cannot be treated as medical leave. He is not entitled any payment for that period".

Absence Of Railway Ticket No Bar For Bona Fide Passenger To Claim Accident Compensation: AP High Court

Case Title: N. Sri Rama Prasad and another v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 216 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the absence of a railway ticket from a deceased passenger's belongings, by itself, does not mean that he was travelling without a ticket.

In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed an appeal filed by the parents of a deceased passenger and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order dismissing their compensation claim.

The Court awarded Rs. 8 lakh compensation to the parents under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which provides for compensation in cases of “untoward incidents” involving railway passengers.

The Court observed:

“In the instant case, the claimants have placed the facts regarding the purchase of ticket by the father of the deceased, and the said fact was pleaded, as such, the department is required to rebut the same.

…learned counsel for the appellants submits that, once an affidavit is filed stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which shows that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by falling during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in train was not rebutted…”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Calls For Revision Of AP Advocates' Fee Rules, Says It Doesn't Reflect Prevailing Rates

Case Title: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vellanki Lakshmi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 217

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the advocate fee structure prescribed under the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 2010 requires revision, noting that some of the prescribed fees have become outdated and have no correlation with prevailing rates.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against a motor accident compensation award.

In doing so, the Court also enhanced the compensation payable to the deceased's family from Rs. 7.10 lakh to Rs. 11.94 lakh and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on APSRTC, payable to the claimants.

Caste Certificate | Fresh Enquiry On Same Allegation Cannot Be Initiated Without Additional Material: AP High Court

Case Title: Smt. Thota Rajya Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 218

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside orders cancelling a woman's Scheduled Tribe community certificate, finding that the authorities had failed to consider an earlier Vigilance enquiry confirming her community status.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N. allowed the writ petition filed by an employee of Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL). The Court said responsible employers should not entertain frivolous complaints, as they can cause undesirable consequences and trauma to employees.

The Court observed:

"The respondents could not have initiated a fresh enquiry as and when they received a complaint with regard to the community certificate of any employee. Once a comprehensive enquiry is completed and a finding is arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the same ought to be referred to for considering any further complaint against the said employee for initiating further action, if necessary, subject to the fresh complaint bringing on record any additional material which was ignored by the earlier Enquiry Officer.

On the facts of the present case, it is evident that there was no additional material submitted by the complainant with regard to suppression of any material by the petitioner or any additional material which required a re-enquiry into the community certificate of the petitioner. The enquiry appears to have been initiated on a complaint received from a third party on the same allegation that the petitioner had submitted a false community certificate and secured employment in the 6th respondent. Such complaints could not have been entertained by the respondent as a responsible employer in the State. Frivolous complaints against employees ought not to be entertained by the employer, as they result in undesirable consequences and cause trauma to the employee."

Mother Can't Be Denied Family Member Certificate Merely Because Deceased Son Was Married: AP High Court

Case Title: Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 219

 The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the Tahsildar's rejection of a mother's application for a Family Member Certificate following the death of her government-employee son, holding that she could independently apply for the certificate even though he was married.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice B. S. Bhanumathi allowed the writ petition challenging the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar and directed him to follow the procedure and issue the certificate to the petitioner, along with other eligible family members. 

The Court observed:

"As the petitioner claims to be the nominee to the service benefits of her son, she might have applied for a family member certificate. Apart from being nominee, the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased government employee, even in the presence of wife or / and child / children of the deceased employee, is a legal heir and a family member. As such, the petitioner can apply for issuance of a family member certificate. After conducting an enquiry by following the above stated procedure, if at all, any other family member (s) is / are found to be entitled to such certificate, he / she / they may also be included in the certificate, along with the mother of the deceased employee, but she cannot be made to wait for issuance of the certificate till the wife chooses to seek a family member certificate..."

Bank Can Retain Jewellery Pledged Against Gold Loan To Recover Other Dues Where Party Is Co-Borrower: AP High Court

Case Title: Balagam Sri Vijaya Bhargavi v. Regional Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 220

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a bank to retain 67.1 grams of gold ornaments pledged against a gold loan to recover outstanding dues under another loan, in which the petitioner was also a co-applicant along with main borrower.

In doing so, the Court dismissed a writ petition seeking return of the pledged ornaments. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati found that the petitioner had herself agreed to this arrangement under a Gold Loan Pledge Form.

Dental Masters Must Be Completed Within 6 Yrs; Mere Demand Draft Without Formal Request Letter Can't Secure Readmission: AP High Court

Case Title: Dr. U. Anudeep v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 221

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Demand Draft submitted by a Master of Dental Surgery (M.D.S.) student, without enclosing a formal “request letter”, could not be treated as a request for continuation of the course. 

Before Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjanwas a writ petition filed by a postgraduate dental student seeking to set aside the communication of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences rejecting his request to continue his M.D.S. course and to direct the University to permit him to pursue the course.

The Court observed:

“A perusal of writ affidavit and material on record reveals that while drawing Demand Draft dated 07.03.2023, petitioner did not enclose any formal “request letter”. Petitioner claims that he was not aware of the procedure to avail of an opportunity to continue with the P.G.Course, and thus had not addressed any letter enclosing Annexures 1 & 2, which could have been done only after respondent No.3 College apprised him. Argument as raised before us and noted in para 9 above, is in direct contradiction to specific pleadings. Respondent University, in its counter-affidavit, has specifically stated that no application was received prior to 27.06.2024.

Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that even if Demand Draft dated 07.03.2023 is considered as a request, which in effect is not possible, petitioner by no stretch of imagination can complete the course within a period of six years from the date of his admission. His eligibility qua attendance, etc., is also clearly deficient.”

Successive Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Reopen Grounds Already Available But Not Raised In Earlier Petition: AP High Court

Case Title: Bommali Ashajyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh &

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 222

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a second writ of habeas corpus challenging the same preventive detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution can be maintained only when there is a change in circumstances or a new ground becomes available after the earlier petition was decided. 

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi in a writ petition filed by Bommali Ashajyothi seeking the release of her husband, Bommali Vamsi Krishna, from preventive detention.

The Court observed:

“...after the dismissal of the writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention, if the judgment of the High Court is not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has not been filed, then fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained in the High Court only if the circumstances have changed or if a new ground becomes available after the decision of the earlier writ petition after the decision of the earlier writ petition. Otherwise, the judgment in the previous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be final, on the principle of finality attached, though it may not be on the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

in T.P.Moideen Koya (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex court clearly observed that “if a fresh petition under Article 32 was permitted on the ground that certain ground has not been dealt with in the judgment, a party can file as many petitions as he likes and take one or two new points every time.” The same may also be the situation in case of the successive Habeas Corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the same High Court.”

Minority School Need Not Follow Reservation Roster When Appointing Candidate From Same Minority Community: AP High Court

Case Title: M. Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 223

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of approval for an Attender appointed by a Christian minority school, holding that the reservation roster did not apply to his appointment as he belonged to the same minority community as the institution.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Balaji Medamalli in a writ petition concerning the approval and regularisation of an Attender appointed by Church of South India (CSI) High School, a minority educational institution.

The Court observed:

"Upon perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the requirement of following the rule of reservation is exempted in respect of minority educational institutions where the management selects candidates belonging to the concerned minority community. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Christian minority community and was appointed by a minority institution. Therefore, the said rule has no application, and the appointment of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of non-adherence to the roster meant for a BC-A (Woman) candidate."

Valid Prosecution Sanction For Corruption Case Can't Be Withdrawn In Absence Of New Material Warranting Review: AP High Court

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 224

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a valid prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be withdrawn once it has been acted upon and criminal proceedings have commenced and that only fresh material can warrant such reconsideration.

The Court accordingly dismissed a challenge by a retired Executive Engineer in the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department to the revival of prosecution sanction against him in a disproportionate assets case under the 1988 Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli was dealing with a challenge to G.O.Rt. No. 763 dated October 3, 2024, by which the Government cancelled its earlier order withdrawing the prosecution sanction against the petitioner.

The Court observed:

“...once the criminal prosecution has been set in motion pursuant to a valid sanction, the authorities cannot withdraw the sanction by invoking their power of review in the absence of any new material warranting such reconsideration. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that certain new material came to light after the grant of sanction or after filing of the charge sheet, which warranted withdrawal of the sanction. The recommendation for withdrawal was made on the basis of the same material that had already been considered while granting the sanction. The question as to whether the disproportionate assets of petitioner exceeded or were less than 20% of his known sources of income is a matter that can be considered by the competent criminal Court during the trial. Petitioner has an opportunity to raise all his contentions in this regard before the said Court. Therefore, the said issue cannot be made a ground for withdrawing the sanction after the criminal prosecution has already been set in motion.”

State Labour Court Can Entertain Industrial Dispute Involving Central Govt-Controlled Bank Employee: AP High Court

Case Title: Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 225

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a workman can approach a State Government-constituted Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute arises within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.

In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Labour Court, Guntur, which had refused to entertain the dispute on the ground that the Central Government was the appropriate Government for the bank and, therefore, the dispute ought to have been brought before a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government.

Accepting the maintainability of the petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:

“... this Court is of the view that, since the dispute arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur, and having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the application filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the State Government is maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed in Industrial Dispute No.24 of 2013 by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, and notified vide G.O.Rt.No. 118, dated 22.04.2021, issued by the Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (OP) Department, is set aside, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.”

Govt Employee's Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due To Marital Status: AP High Court

Case Title: B. Sobha and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Other

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 226

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter of a deceased Government employee cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marital status. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the daughter's candidature. 

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of UP (2026), the Court observed:

"Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations. The assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents…

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment and having regard to the judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioners that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee, this Court is of the considered opinion that 2nd petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the impugned order of rejection dated 18.11.2023 is unsustainable."