Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 12- May 18, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 88 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 97Nominal IndexA.B. Venkateswara Rao, IPS v. The State of Andhra Pradesh – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 88K. Mohan Rao v. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District and others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 89M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 90M/s Acme Fitness Pvt Ltd v. The State Of AP and Others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 91Ravi Ramesh v. The Union Government Of India and Others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 92Gonabavi Jani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 93Vennapusa Raghunath Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 94S.S. Karri & Another v. Deputy Registrar – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 95Seelam Atma Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 96Valluru Siva Prasad v. The District Registrar Registration Stamps Guntur – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 97Judgments/Final OrdersAndhra Pradesh HC Quashes Case Against Ex-ADGP Accused Of Misusing Office While Upgrading Surveillance Systems, Calls It His "Bounden Duty"Case Title: A.B.Venkateswara Rao, IPS v. The State of Andhra PradeshCase Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4675 of 2022Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 88The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed charges against A.B.Venkateswara Rao, former Additional Director General of Police for the intelligence department, accused of misusing his office by benefiting a third party, allegedly managed by his son, and causing loss to the government exchequer.He was initially accused of committing offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 7(a)(c) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and Sections 409, 420, 120-B and read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Highlighting the role of the intelligence department and the duty of the petitioner, as the Head of the Intelligence Department, to adapt to the evolving needs of surveillance, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,“Maintenance of Law and Order would largely depend on the inputs of the Intelligence Department. The intelligence inputs of the Intelligence Department plays a crucial role in crime prevention, Law Enforcement, National Security, Internal security, Counter Terrorism, Public Order apart from a host of other challenges faced on a day to day basis in maintaining Law and Order. The petitioner as the then Head of the Intelligence Department had the bounden duty to adopt the changing technology and attempted to upgrade the surveillance system of the state police. In the said process he had proposed for procuring the surveillance equipment from a supplier whose equipment would meet the requirements of the state police.”Preliminary Enquiry Loses Significance Once Regular Enquiry Is Initiated By Issuing Charge Sheet To Delinquent: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: K. Mohan Rao v. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District and othersCase Number: W.P.(AT) No.78 of 2021Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 89The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a preliminary enquiry loses its significance once regular enquiry is initiated and a major penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, particularly once the regular enquiry has been initiated by issuing a charge sheet.Explaining further, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam held,“Once the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge is not proved, the 1st respondent cannot impose the major penalty based on the preliminary report. Since the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry, as the Charged Officer or the delinquent is not associated with it, and the opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such enquiry is not given. Using of such evidence would be the violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the preliminary enquiry report loses its significance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing the charge sheet to the delinquent.”'Must Narrow Down Gaps For Effective Treatment': AP High Court Upholds New Gap Analysis Method To Treat Bio-Medical WasteCase Title: M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of IndiaCase Number: I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 in/and WRIT PETITION NO: 6365/2025Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 90The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the adoption of new methodology for conducting gap analysis related to Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTFs) on the ground that such cases fall within the domain of expert bodies where the Courts should exercise judicial restraint.Highlighting the importance exploring new methods for narrowing gaps for effective waste treatment, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, explained,“…it is needful to note that inadequate number of treatment facilities and treatment facilities with inadequate capacity to treat the waste generated may result in unscientific disposal of bio-medical waste to ...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 12- May 18, 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags