Citations: [2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123]Nominal Index:VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP)...
Citations: [2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123]
Nominal Index:
VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119
Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120
Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121
Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123
Judgments/Final Orders
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.6783/2022
Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (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: 2025 LiveLaw (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: 2025 LiveLaw (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: 2025 LiveLaw (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: 2025 LiveLaw (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.”