Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 19 - May 25, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98 to 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 103Nominal IndexNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Lakshmi – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98Bhashyam Venkata Rao and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 99Tappa Abdul Rasool v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 100Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 101Dr. A. Himabindu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 102Kosuri Radha Vs. The State of AP and others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 103Judgments/Final OrdersMotor Vehicles Act | 'Excavator' Falls Within Definition Of 'Motor Vehicle' U/S 2(28): Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. LakshmiCase Number: MACMA No. 146 of 2012Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09.05.2025, held that an excavator, which is a “mechanically propelled machine”, comes within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the 1988 Act”)Section 2(28) enacts that a 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means “any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.”In this regard, Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar further explained,“The above definition informs that a motor vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. The definition has an exclusionary principle stating that vehicles running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises and vehicles of less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic centimeters. In the case at hand, the excavator was not on any enclosed premises, and it was not a vehicle with engine less than 25 cubic centimeters or less. At the material point of time, it was not in any factory or closed premises. It was in a public place. It was also not on fixed rails. Therefore, it does not fall within the exclusionary clause of motor vehicle.”Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Allotment Of Govt Land As Burial Ground For Muslim CommunityCase Title: Bhashyam Venkata Rao and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersCase Number: W.P.No. 34697 of 2022Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 99The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea challenging allotment of a Government land by the District Collector, Visakhapatam District (Respondent 3) as burial ground for Muslim Community.In this regard, Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held,"It is pertinent to mention that, the proposed land was identified for burial ground inasmuch as the existing burial ground was affected in 60-0 master plan. The respondents, after following the procedure contemplated under law and taking into consideration of all the aspects including the feasibility, identified the proposed land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.138/1, for allotment of burial ground, which is adjacent to existing burial grounds of Hindu and Christian religions. From the foregoing reasons, the interference of this Court is not warranted."State Govt Bound To Accept Selection Panel's Recommendation Of Appointees To Consumer Forum Despite Antecedent Report: AP High CourtCase Title: Tappa Abdul Rasool v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case Number: W.A. No. 18214 of 2022Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 100The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that if the State Government considers a candidate who ranked first in the order of seniority unfit for appointment to Consumer Forum due to suitability and integrity concerns, his antecedent report along with the state's opinion, must be placed before the Selection Committee for reconsideration.If, after such reconsideration, the Selection Committee still reaffirms its recommendation, then the state government is bound to appoint the individual.A Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, observed,“Therefore, in cases where the Government is of the opinion that a particular individual ranked first in the order of seniority is not considered to be fit for appointment as Chairman/member on account of antecedent report vis-a-vis suitability and integrity, then such a report along with the opinion of the State Government should be placed before the Selection Committee for reconsideration of order of merit. If the Selection Committee after taking note of the antecedent report and the opinion of the Government may still recommend the said individual and then the Government is bound to appoint the...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 19 - May 25, 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags