Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Citations: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 149 – LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 155Nominal Index:Yemu Kondal Rao v. The State Of AP and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 149V.D. Moorthy v. The State of AP and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 150Shaik Masthan Vali v. Kummaru Durga and Batch: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 151Realme Mobile Telecommunications v. State of AP: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 152Nakul Chandra Biswal v. Badaru Srinivasa Rao and Another: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 153M/s. Orind Special Refractories Ltd. v. M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 154Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 155Judgments/Final Orders'Politically Motivated': AP High Court Junks PIL Challenging Display Of Deputy CM's Portraits In Public OfficesCase Title: Yemu Kondal Rao v. The State Of AP and OthersCase Number: WP(PIL) NO: 169 of 2025Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 149The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which challenged the display of pictures and portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister in government offices across the State.The PIL petition, filed by Yemu London Rao, was stated to "safeguard public interest” and argued that the said act of displaying the portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister violated the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Dismissing the PIL petition, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed,“We fail to understand as to how the display of a portrait or a picture in a Government office of a Deputy Chief Minister would in any manner affect any of the rights of a citizen under the Constitution in the absence of any specific statutory prohibition on such display. The petition is clearly filed with a political motive.”S.179(1) BNSS | Police Cannot Compel Presence Of 'Any Person' Acquainted With Case As Matter Of Right: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: V D MOORTHY v. THE STATE OF AP and othersCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 22577/2025Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 150The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the power of a police officer under Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure the attendance of “any person”, is territorially restricted to persons residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station, and the power, therefore, does not extend to persons residing beyond his jurisdiction. It further added that a policeman cannot secure the presence of such a person “as a matter of right.”Section 179(1) authorises a Police Officer to secure the presence of “any person” subject to two conditions—- (1) if such person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and, (2) if such person resides within the limits of his own Police Station or any adjoining station. However, the first proviso to Section 179(1) prescribes exceptions to the above-mentioned power and exempts a—- (i) male person under the age of 15 years or above the age of 60 years, (ii) woman irrespective of the age, (iii) mentally or physically disabled person, and (iv) person with acute illness. Further, under the second proviso, if such a person is willing to attend at the police station, he/she may be permitted so to do.Explaining the application of the first proviso, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed–“The proviso, referred to supra, makes it clear that the Police Officer can issue an order in writing to them by virtue of the power under Section 179(1) of BNSS, but he cannot secure their presence before him as a matter of right. Meaning thereby, the said persons have no legal obligation to appear before him in obedience to the notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS, in the light of the exceptions. Such being the case, the Police Officer can examine such person at his residence. If any person receiving notice falls into one of the categories mentioned above, he is not bound to attend before the Police Officer. His failure to attend would not lead to any legal action. The object of this proviso appears to be, such persons, being vulnerable, cannot be troubled by the Police Officer in the name of investigation.”AP High Court Rejects Appeals Filed Under Land Grabbing Act After Abolition Of Special Court, Says Govt Has No Power To Vest Jurisdiction In HCCase Title: Shaik Masthan Vali v. Kummaru Durga and batchCase Number: LAND GRABBING APPEAL No. 20 of 106 and batchCitation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 151The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a host of appeals which were either transferred or directly filed before it after abolition of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (1982 Act) by the State vide a Government Order of 2016.Noting that the vested right of appeal perishes when an appellate Court is abolished without constitution of an alternative Forum for disposal of pending matters or appeals, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,“The G.O.Ms.No.420,...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags