Citations: [LiveLaw (2025) AP 110 – LiveLaw (2025) AP 124]Nominal Index:Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 110K.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Executive Officer waqf And 3 Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 111Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary SPSUP School vs The State Of AP & Ors: LiveLaw (2025) AP 112M/s Chaitanya High...
Citations: [LiveLaw (2025) AP 110 – LiveLaw (2025) AP 124]
Nominal Index:
Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 110
K.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Executive Officer waqf And 3 Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 111
Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary SPSUP School vs The State Of AP & Ors: LiveLaw (2025) AP 112
M/s Chaitanya High School v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw (2025) AP 113
K S VIJAY ANAND v. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP: LiveLaw (2025) AP 114
VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF AP: LiveLaw (2025) AP 115
Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw (2025) AP 116
Central Bank of India v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 117
The Indian Cement Limited v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw (2025) AP 118
VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: LiveLaw (2025) AP 119
Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 120
Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 121
Kalimela Kiran Kumar Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 121
Killo Subbarao and Others Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw (2025) AP 122
Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust and Others Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 123
MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 124
Final Orders/Judgments:
Case Number- W.P. No. 26386 of 2023
Case Name- Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 110
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) applicant, who sought appointment under the BC-E category in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Services, and had her candidature rejected on account of non-compliance with eligibility conditions.
Following the publication of a recruitment advertisement, the petitioner had submitted her non-creamy layer certificate much after the entire selection process had concluded. In this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati explained,
“According to the advertisement notification, it was made clear to the petitioner and similarly situated others that any applicant who intended to avail the reservation had to upload the non-creamy layer certificate, and in case of failure to upload the same, that the candidate would be considered under the open merit category. The petitioner, therefore, was required to upload the requisite certificate before the last date for application prescribed in the advertisement notification, i.e., 8.12.2022, and therefore, clearly her case could not have been considered in any category except the open category as had clearly been made clear in the said notification.”
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 845/2016
Case Title: K.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Executive Officer waqf And 3 Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 111
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Waqf Board is authorised under Section 65(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act of 1995) to take over the management of a mosque in cases of evident mismanagement, despite the existence of a judicially formulated scheme governing the management of the mosque.
In the present case, the mismanagement of Shahji Jamia Mosque, Adoni, was in question, where misappropriation of roughly Rs.150 crores of property and violations of the Act of 1995 was involved, including a failure to submit annual income accounts, budget proposals, and expenditure statements.
In this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“Regarding overriding effect of the provisions of the Waqf Act by virtue of Section 108A, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same shall be read in conjunction with Section 32 of the Act. Upon such, the end result would be that the Board will have general superintendence so as to ensure that waqf properties are properly maintained, controlled and administered and income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such waqf was created, however, such a superintendence, shall be subject to any scheme made by any Court of law, whether before or after the commencement of the Act.”
Case Number- W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch
Case Name- Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary SPSUP School vs The State Of AP & Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 112
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has struck down the Computer-Based Test (CBT) method for the selection and appointment of teachers in schools receiving grant-in-aid.
In the absence of a legislation permitting the Executive to introduce a new system of selection and appointment of teachers, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,
"Howsoever laudable the object of the proposed conduct of Computer Based Test (CBT) may be, the same cannot be introduced without being backed-up by a legislation or a subordinate legislation. It certainly cannot be done through an executive fate either in the form of an executive instruction or executive order. When the system which had been introduced for conducting Computer based test had been expressly set aside by striking down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state cannot introduced the same system indirectly by an executive order or an executive instruction, for, what you cannot do directly, you cannot do it indirectly either.”
The Single Judge added,
“Although, the Court takes note of the increase in the competition and also increase in the number of applications for filling up the teacher posts, the state may take steps in bringing in a suitable legislation or subordinate legislation for introducing the new system that may be commensurate with the current needs and exigencies. Till such time, the State has not brought in a legislation or subordinate legislation by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting the Rule-13 of the Rules-1994, the State cannot introduced the Computer Based Test (CBT).”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.27468 OF 2013
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya High School v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 113
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to consider enhancing the pre-matric scholarship amount for M/s Chaitanya High School—a school selected under the Best Available Schools (BAS) Scheme in SPSR Nellore District—on par with similar schools in other districts who were sanctioned a higher amount.
Highlighting that no reasons were accorded explaining the denial of the full scholarship amount of Rs.20,000 per student to the petitioner school, despite a favorable recommendation by the District Level Committee (DLC), Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held,
“Even according to principles of natural justice, the authorities must disclose reasons for arriving at such conclusion and it is only to enable the person to know the reason for passing any adverse order against him. When the decision taken by the respondents is arbitrary, such action can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The word “Arbitrariness‟ is the quality of being “determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen the Right to Equality. It applies the principle of Equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons.”
The Court added,
“…since the petitioners fall under the category of Best Available Schools, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners schools for enhancement of pre-matric scholarship amount under Best Available Schools Scheme and enhance the amount of Rs.15,000/- to Classes III & IV; Rs.20,000/- to Class V to X per student per annum, on par with other Best Available Schools. The respondents shall pay the arrears to the petitioners' schools along with interest @ 6% per annum, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Case Number: WP 7886/2025
Case Title: K S VIJAY ANAND v. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 114
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted relief to a senior-most high school teacher who was transferred despite the presence of two junior teachers, under the pretext of adjusting surplus aided staff to needy aided schools in the Nandyal District.
The plea sought a direction to declare the State's January 16 order as unconstitutional which proposed deputation of the petitioner to SRKGV Aided HS Mahanandi as per G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (PS) Department dated 22.06.2023, on the ground of "work adjustment of surplus aided teachers into the needy Aided Schools in Nandyal District".
Justice Challa Gunaranjan in his order said,
“Plain reading of aforesaid clause goes to show that either on one's willingness to accept transfer or if it is a compulsory transfer, the same has to commence from junior most in the category of the post. Apparently, in the present case, there are three Secondary Grade Teachers working, of which petitioner is senior most amongst them. In terms of aforesaid guidelines, person who is junior most has to be first deputed on transfer and only thereafter, petitioner could have been transferred. The impugned order to the extent of transferring petitioner who is senior most without exhausting the transfers of juniors is clearly in contravention of the aforesaid clause.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 5435 OF 2025
Case Title: VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF AP
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 115
In a judgment dated May 06, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the enhancement of the minimum annual turnover threshold for bidders—from five crores to ten crores—for qualification under a Government Tender issued for printing and distribution of school textbooks/workbooks for students studying in private schools for the Academic Years 2025-2026 & 2026-2027.
Reaffirming the right of the Government to prescribe or modify the tender conditions “at will”, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,
“…this Court is of the view that reference to such Tender conditions has no relevance inasmuch as every individual Authority has always right to either prescribe or to modify the Tender conditions "at will". One idiomatic expression states that “Monkeys cannot decide the affairs of the forest‟ likewise, a bidder can never dictate the employer or the Government Authority with regard to the fixation of tender conditions or the parameters.”
The Court thus held,
“…that the increase of the threshold with regard to the turnover from five crores per annum to ten crores per annum is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This Court is also of the opinion that giving latitude to the bidders to show the minimum turnover of ten crores for two years period during the last five financial years is also not arbitrary. The facts in the present case would also indicate that out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders have reached the threshold of turnover of ten crores. Therefore, it cannot be said that fixation of the 10 crores threshold is arbitrary in nature nor is it discriminative in any manner because out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders were qualified in the technical bid.”
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5701/2025
Case Title: Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 116
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to former Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (A1) and a representative of M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd. (A2), a private company entrusted with the manual evaluation of Group-I main exam answer scripts, who were accused of criminal breach of trust and irregularities in the manual evaluation process, including shifting of answer scripts to a private location and employing unqualified school teachers for evaluation.
While A1 had urged the invocation of Section 197 of CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the government before a Court can take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of their official duty, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava held,
“…unless it is established that the alleged act was in excess of discharge of his official duties, and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of official duty, the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., would not arise. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the investigation is at the threshold, the protection as envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner A-1.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12247 of 2024
Case Title: Central Bank of India v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 117
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of Central Bank of India (petitioner) to recover its secured debts by sale of the mortgaged assets under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and has ruled that it assumes priority over the claims of the State Government for recovery of dues under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT Act).
On account of specific statutory provisions that granted secured creditors priority over other debts and government dues, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“…it can be seen that now there is a specific provision providing for priority in favour of the secured creditors, to realize the secured debts, due and payable to them, over all other debts and Government dues, we have no hesitation to hold that the right of the petitioner Bank to recover its dues by sale of the secured asset would have priority over the arrears which were sought to be recovered by the respondent State under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 14515/2025
Case Title: The Indian Cement Limited v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 118
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State authorities to extend effective police protection to Indian Cement Limited (petitioner), a subsidiary of UltraTech Cements, in light of escalating tensions and disruption of operations caused by contract labourers, allegedly upon the instigation of a local politician.
Taking serious note of the law and order situation prevailing in the factory premises of the petitioner, Justice Harinath N observed,
“Maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the State. A manufacturing unit established in a remote area of the State, which has generated direct and indirect employment to several people, cannot be left in the lurch and bleed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying taxes to the State and paying GST. Abrupt closure of the unit would result in a loss to the exchequer on account of non-payment of taxes.”
“As seen from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, it is amply clear that a normal atmosphere is not prevailing near the petitioner's factory and an uneasy tension is in the air. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take all necessary and required steps to maintain law and order and to ensure free ingress and egress of men and material. Adequate and effective police protection is to be extended to the petitioner company to restart its activities.” the Court added.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.6783/2022
Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 119
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a transgender woman in heterosexual marriage can file a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa emphasized that a transgender woman, identifying as a female and living in a marital relationship with a man, cannot be excluded from the protection of laws meant to safeguard women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty.
"A transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, cannot be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband or the relatives of her husband," it observed.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 41332/2016
Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 120
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of a retired employee of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Birth (DOB) in the official service records, after having received all promotions and service benefits based on the same date.
In this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,
“Petitioner at the fag end of his career when his superannuation was approaching, preferred representations to the respondent authorities, by simply blaming the respondents as if his Date of Birth had been changed. But, the petitioner is not able to substantiate his assertion regarding the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Birth in the service Record. In the absence of the prerequisite foundational facts regarding his case, it is not apt for this Court to go into an arena which is purely a disputed question of fact, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident from the record that, did not raise any objection with respect to the Seniority List prepared by the respondents' corporation even today. But for the sake of extension of his services after 28 years of service from the date of joining, he is disputing his date of birth in the service register.”
Commenting that the case comes within the ambit of doctrine of 'Approbate and Reprobate', the Court added,
“The petitioner himself produced his Educational Certificate issued by the concerned District Education Officer on his own volition, in which his Date of Birth is stated as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the version of the respondents Corporation. But, on the fag end of his career, he has taken the plea that is date of birth is 25.08.1961, so as to extend his service and receive its consequential benefits. Thus, the case of the petitioner directly comes under the ambit of 'Approbate and Reprobate', which in general words means one cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. In other words, a person cannot be allowed to have the advantage of a document while challenging the same. In such an event, the petitioner either has to affirm or disaffirm the said transaction.”
Case Number: WP No. 2618 of 2024
Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 121
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a man's plea against the decision of the Waqf Tribunal which had adjudicated on a suit concerning a disputed land, despite the fact that a civil court had decided the matter 45 years ago giving a finding that the disputed property is not a waqf property.
The court thus said that the Waqf Tribunal does not have the power to adjudicate any case which is the subject-matter of a suit filed before the civil court before the commencement of the Waqf Act, or any appeal/decree arising out of such a suit.
Reiterating that the Tribunal cannot entertain a suit seeking declaration of title over the land which was already adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held,
“When a competent Civil Court recorded a finding in an earlier suit that the property does not belong to the wakf institution, the present suit filed by the wakf institution after a lapse of 41⁄2 decades for declaration of title, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not maintainable given Section 7(5) of the Act. The present Mutavalli, the son of the earlier Mutavalli who lost the suit on an earlier occasion, woke up from deep slumber and filed the present suit after 41⁄2 decades. Once Section 7(5) of the Act comes into action, the Tribunal, at no stretch of imagination, can continue the suit on its file for further adjudication. The corollary would be that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and hence, a writ of prohibition can be issued in the facts of this case.”
'Ganja' Seeds, Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5306/2025
Case Title: Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 122
In a judgement dated 23.06.2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the definition of 'Ganja' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is limited to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, and excludes from its ambit the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa explained,
“As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of 'Ganja' is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 15594/2025
Case Title: Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 123
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted permission to a trust which manages Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple (petitioner) located in Tiruchanur near Tirupati, to conduct the Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu–nine day Navratri festival–from June 26 to July 5.
In an order passed on June 16 the petitioner, along with one Y Gangi Reddy (Respondent 7)- with whom the petitioner was involved in a land dispute, were barred by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Respondent 5) from entering the land on which the Trust was situated and where the festival was intended to be conducted.
Against this backdrop, Justice Harinath N observed,
“The impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025 shall stand suspended till 06.07.2025. The 6th (SHO) respondent shall extend necessary bundobust to the petitioner/Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust for performing the proposed “Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu” from 26.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The petitioner also shall cooperate with the 6th respondent and ensure that the no law and order problem is created on account of the permission granted.”
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024
Case Title: MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 124
In a case involving the illegal construction of a bridge over a Canal in Andhra Pradesh's Kaikaluru town, the High Court has called for stringent laws that punish not only public violators but also the government officials who turn a blind-eye to illegal encroachments and violations on waterways.
Taking serious note of the detrimental impact of such encroachments and calling for legislative reforms that hold officials accountable for sitting on such issues, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed,
“These violations on waterways and watercourses in which fresh water or drainage water flows are damaging or destroying the flora and fauna besides causing humongous damage to the human inhabitations. In times of flood, inundation of land by water become virtual death-traps for animals in the wild (in forests) as well as to the humans in the villages, towns and metropolitan cities. It is also noticed that the violators go scot-free with impunity because the existing law, does not have a deterrent effect. Therefore, it is the right time for the Government (law makers) to make laws, rules and regulations to weaponise the Government Departments to achieve this purpose. This law needs to address not only the violators from among the public, but also the Officials who conveniently turn a blind-eye to the acts of violation."
Thereafter, in public interest, the Court issued multiple guidelines to combat the detriments of illegal encroachments on waterways.