Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025

Nominal Index

Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56

V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57

Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58

A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 59

P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 60

Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 61

JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA v. THE STATE OF AP: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 62

Rathi Vasudeva Rao vs. PVRM Patnaik: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 63

Regional Director ESI vs M/s Ramakrishna Rice Mill: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 64

Chimakurthi Naga Venkata Sai Kiran v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 65

Shanmukha Kanaka Priya Chinta v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 66

S. Swapna v. State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 67

X v. Y and others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 68

K Suresh Babu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Other: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 69

P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 70

Shirdi Saibaba Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner St and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 71

PAMPANA KALYANI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 72

Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 73

G Venkata Ramana v. The State Of Ap and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 74

C.narayana v. State Of AP and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 75

Ravindra Muthavarapu v. The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 76

Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State Of Ap and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 77

Judgments/Final Orders

Rape Not Mere Physical Assault, Liberal Approach While Granting Bail Against Interest Of Society: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1986/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 56

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the offence of rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault, and adopting a liberal approach while granting bail in such cases goes against the interest of the society.

In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, observed,

“The offence of rape is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. Gang rape carries twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature. In fact, rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected, there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently…”

Absence Of Prejudice Not Sole Ground To Brush Aside Principles Of Natural Justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: V.S. Rayudu, S/o. Gopal, Occ: Driver and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 2873/2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 57

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed orders passed by the concerned Depot Manager deducting amounts from the salaries of the drivers and conductors working in the concerned depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.

In doing so the court observed that the corporation had not followed the procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967. It further underscored that the doctrine of prejudice does not replace of principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part of the same and the projection of an argument of prejudice would not by itself be a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.

'Shows Have Already Been Telecast': Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Challenging Increase In Ticket Prices Of Telugu Film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'

Case Title: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others

Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 22/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation plea challenging the increase in ticket prices of Telugu film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'–starring Venkatesh, Aishwarya Rajesh and Meenakshi Chaudhary–and which further sought an investigation into the film's production cost valued at over Rs. 100 crores.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:

"Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is no point in dealing with the aspect of enhancing the ticket prices for the film named “Sankranthiki Vastunam”, as the scheduled shows have already been telecast, this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is liable to be dismissed.”

Scope Of Judicial Review Very Limited In Transfers Made Due To Administrative Exigencies: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 42273/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 59

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the Court possesses very limited scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers made on account of administrative exigencies.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, while dismissing a writ petition challenging proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (Respondent 2), whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala, further held,

“The petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place. It is for the employer, having regard to the administrative contingencies, to decide on transfers, and such a decision, in the absence of any arbitrary and malafide attributions being made or established, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Investigators Probing Cases Involving Public Funds Must Not Reveal Details Of Probe Unless Needed, Unsubstantiated Claims Can Damage Reputations: AP HC

Case Title: P V Mudhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2904/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 60

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an Investigating Officer (IO), who is tasked with investigating matters involving public funds, should ensure that investigation details are not disclosed unless such disclosure is necessary for an investigation or for public interest at large.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao held, “This court views that while the investigation agency claims to be investigating an allegedly major liquor scam involving thousands of crores of rupees, keeping the details about the investigation in the public domain raises serious concerns. It isn't easy to reconcile how such sensitive particulars of information could be made public at this initial stage of the investigation. The premature disclosure could significantly hinder the progress of the investigation, as it may alert those involved in the scam, allowing them to cover their tracks or alter their actions in response to the information.”

"This court views that if the particulars of the investigation, those revealed during the early stages, are not adequately substantiated or are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, it could severely damage the reputations of the individuals who have been named, and they may be portrayed as being involved in the scam, even though the investigation is still in its preliminary phase, and no conclusive material has been established against them,” he added.

"Unknown To Criminal Jurisprudence": Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside Order Permitting Prosecution To Frame, Alter Charges U/S 216 CrPC

Case Title: Sriram Chandra Sekhar @ Chintu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3424 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 61

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the legislative intent behind enacting Section 216 of CrPC is only to ensure that the Court retains the exclusive power to alter or add a charge depending upon the evidence placed before it and subsequently ensure that the accused is notified of the same.

Justice Harinath N explained that Section 216 does not give scope to either the prosecution or the accused to seek alteration or addition of a charge by filing an application before the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 216 of CrPC. In this regard, it further held,

“If the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is to be invoked by the Court thus there is no scope for filing a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., either by the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. If Section 216 Cr.P.C., is invoked by the prosecution or the accused there cannot be an end for any trial before any Court. If the parties to a litigation are allowed to invoke Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the very purpose of incorporating Section 216 Cr.P.C., in the Code would be defeated. If the parties misuse it, it would delay the conclusion of the trial, and the same would be beyond the scope of the Court to conclude any trial in any case.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Plea Of MBBS Student Suffering From Cerebral Palsy Seeking Compensatory Time During Exams

Case Title: JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA v. THE STATE OF AP

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 5316 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 62

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a writ petition for grant of additional compensatory time to a second year MBBS student suffering from cerebral palsy, during her examinations sought on account of her disability.

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, while granting a total of 4.5 hours instead of 3 hours to the petitioner to complete all the examinations concerning the MBBS course until she finishes the course, held,

“The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the differences for the Writ Petitioner to succeed in the first year MBBS examinations. Although, it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time. Having regard to the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the socially beneficial laws governing the differently abled persons, this Court does not find any reason to reject the request made by the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner was able to utilise the extra time that was given by this Court on the earlier occasion and pass the 1st year MBBS Examinations.”

Justice Prasad was of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act.

S.138 NI Act | Lok Adalat Award In A Criminal Case For Cheque Dishonour Can Be Executed By Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Rathi Vasudeva Rao vs. PVRM Patnaik

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 63

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an award passed by the Lok Adalat concerning a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is executable by a Civil court. 

For context, Section 138 NI Act pertains to dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in K.N Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D.Shaji and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act Justice Subba Reddy Satti in his order held: 

"Thus, given the authoritative pronouncements, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the execution petition filed by the decree-holder is not maintainable, lacks merit. This Court holds that the Execution Petition filed by the Decree holder, in pursuance of the award of the Lok Adalat, referred to supra, is maintainable." 

Authorities Cannot Levy Contribution U/S 1(6) Of ESI Act On Establishments Employing Less Than 10 Workers: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Regional Director ESI vs M/s Ramakrishna Rice Mill

Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 801 of 2008

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 64

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that Authorities under section 1(6) of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948; cannot levy a 'contribution' on establishments employing less than 10 individuals at all given times.

Section 1(6) States that a factory shall continue to be governed by the above-mentioned Act, even if the number of employees falls below the specified limit.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan noted that section 1(4) of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act would strictly be applicable only to 'factories.' Similarly, section 1(6) also is taken with regard to a 'factory'.

Factory', the Bench went on to explain, was defined as any precinct which employed at least 10 members on that date or in the previous 12 months as per section 2(12) of the Act, amongst other things.

"May Adversely Affect Investigation": Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused In ₹28 Cr Bank Fraud Case
Case Title: Chimakurthi Naga Venkata Sai Kiran v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2641/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 65

The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man allegedly involved in a case where employees of a Bank are accused of "orchestrating money transfer fraud" of approximately Rs 28.34 crores using various schemes targeting existing and new customers.

The petitioner was booked as accused no. 20 in the case by the police. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, in his order, held:

“The Power under section 438 of Cr.P.C., is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. The Power of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. To some extent, the grant of anticipatory bail interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and the Court must be circumspect while exercising such Power for the grant of anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory at the investigation stage may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting helpful information and the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation will elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order when he is interrogated.”

"Rules Mandate Horizontal Reservation": AP High Court Rejects Open Category Candidate's Plea For Admission In MBBS Course Under Sports Quota

Case Title: Shanmukha Kanaka Priya Chinta v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 10783/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 66

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate belonging to the open category who sought admission in an MBBS college through sports quota.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held so after noting that the A.P. Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules which were amended in July 2007 "make it clear that the reservation granted under sports quota, would be a horizontal reservation under which, the seats available under sports quota would have to be distributed among all the social communities".

"This amendment was challenged before the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Srividya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.A division of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the challenge to this amendment, in terms of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, had upheld the amendment. The division bench, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, had also held that there was a necessity to treat the special reservations, mentioned above, as horizontal reservations. In those circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that distribution of sports quota seats among various social groups is not permissible, has to be rejected," the bench said in its order.

Rule 320 Of AP Prison Rules Or Section 57 Of IPC Does Not Limit Quantum Of Life Sentence, Incarceration Is For Remainder Of Convict's Life: AP HC

Case Title: S. Swapna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.44501 OF 2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 67

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean that the prisoner shall be incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life and Section 57 of IPC and Rule 320(a) of A.P Prison Rules, 1979 (“the Rules”) do not reduce the sentence of life imprisonment of a convict nor create a right to be released before the end of the natural life of the prisoner.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while disposing of a writ petition seeking release of a prisoner who was initially awarded death sentence and was later commuted to imprisonment for life, and had served a sentence for 30 years, held,

“It is contended that for the purposes of calculating remission and premature release, the period of sentence of life is 20 years and the prisoner has already served more than that period and would automatically be entitled to such release. This contention has to be rejected on three grounds. Firstly, the rules framed above do not reduce the term of a sentence of imprisonment for life and cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. Secondly, it is only when remission is given under section 432 of Cr.P.C., that the question of premature release can be taken up. Thirdly, Rule 320, even if it were applicable, does not provide for an automatic release, the rule only requires the advisory board to consider the request of the prisoner to give him premature release.”

With Time Bond May Develop': Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Visitation Rights To Father Whose Son Was Witness Against Him In Mother's Murder Case

Case Title: X v. Y and others

Case Number: C.M.A.No.247 OF 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 68

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted conditional visitation rights to a father, despite his minor son being a witness against him in a case where he was accused of murder of the child's mother.

Noting the father's acquittal in the criminal trial, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held it appropriate to grant conditional visitation rights which will enable the father to get an “opportunity to win over the love and affection of the child, by his acts, conduct behaviour and sharings.” It held:

“The misunderstandings or wrong impressions, may be for any reason, tutoring, living separately for long or otherwise, may get removed. The visitation rights can be allowed with restrictions and imposing conditions in the hope that, with the passage of time the bond between the father and son, may develop. We are of the view that after acquittal the father, ordinarily, should not be deprived of the love and affection of the child or of his company, restricted and supervised…”

State Govt Can Issue Removal Notice To Mayor U/S 679-B Of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act Despite Procedure U/S 23-D Not Being Followed: AP High Court

Case Title: K Suresh Babu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Other

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 9197/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 69

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely because the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is not followed, it cannot be said that the State Government possesses no power to issue notice under Section 679-B of the Act.

Section 23-D of the Act refers to disqualifications of Members and Mayor of the Municipal Corporation whereby the Commissioner gives an intimation to the Member or Mayor upon receiving an allegation that he is not qualified or has become disqualified. Section 679-B pertains to the government's power to remove the Mayor or Deputy Mayor who wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act by giving him an opportunity for explanation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay, further explained that,

“The power under Section 679-B is available to the Government to remove a Member for the grounds mentioned therein, while Section 23-D of the Act applies when the Commissioner has given intimation to the Member of the disqualification and when the Member disputes the same, both these provisions apply in independent spheres. Therefore, the contention of lack of jurisdiction may not arise in this case.”

Audio-Video Recording Of Statement Not Mandatory: AP High Court Allows YSR Congress MP To Be Accompanied By Lawyer Before SIT

Case Title: P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 9861/202

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 70

Disposing of a plea by YSR Congress MP P.V. Midhun Reddy for recording his statement in an investigation through audio-video means in his advocate's presence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that recording of statement through such means is not mandatory and the discretion rests with the police officer.

The court however permitted the MP to be accompanied by two advocates to the office Vijayawada's Police Commissioner; however, at any given point of time, only one counsel shall be permitted to remain present alongside the petitioner. The presence of the counsel accompanying the petitioner shall be subject to the condition that the "counsel remains at a distance of 10 feet from the place of recording of statement; however, the entire examination shall be conducted within the line of sight of the advocate", the court said. It also said that the advocate accompanying the petitioner shall not interfere with the process of recording the petitioner's statement.

Assessment Order Passed Beyond Limitation Period: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside ₹50 Lakh Tax Penalty

Case Title: Shirdi Saibaba Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner St and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NOs.5303 & 5350 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 71

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a plea of Shirdi Saibaba Constructions which was ordered to pay Rs.50,14,541/- as tax penalty, on the grounds that the assessment order was passed beyond the period of limitation.

In this regard, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice K. Manmadha Rao, held,

“…a best judgment order, of assessment, in the case of willful evasion of tax, by the dealer, would mean that the period of assessment, of six years, for every month would commence from the 20th day of the succeeding month, where returns have been filed in time. As there is no dispute that the returns have been filed, by the petitioner, within the prescribed time, the limitation of every month would have to be taken into account. In such circumstances, the order of assessment, dated 31.03.2021, is beyond the period of limitation set out for the months of April to February of the financial year 2014-15. Since the assessment order is beyond the period of limitation, the order of assessment, dated 31.03.2021, passed by the 1st respondent is to be set aside for the period April, 2014 to February, 2015.”

Financial Institution Necessary Party To Challenge Freezing Order: AP High Court Rejects School Teacher's Plea Against Account Freeze

Case Title: PAMPANA KALYANI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.5351 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 72

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Government school teacher's plea against freezing of her account by SBI– following an arbitral tribunal's order, after noting that the petitioner had neither impleaded the financial institution which had obtained the freezing order nor had the exhausted alternate remedy under the Arbitration Act.

Emphasising on significance of impleading a necessary and proper party to the petition, Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed,

“A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.”

Taunting For Not Being Able To Conceive Child Not Cruelty: AP High Court Quashes Dowry Act, 498A IPC Case Against Married Sister-In-Laws

Case Title: Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4896/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 73

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that married sister-in-laws taunting their brother's wife for not being able to conceive child cannot be taken as sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Quashing proceedings against sisters of the husband (first accused), who were together accused of subjecting the wife of the first accused to cruelty and demanding dowry, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,

“…the petitioners 3 and 4 after their marriage were staying away from the marital home of the 1st accused and the 3rd respondent. Even as per the complaint, the third respondent had joined the 1st accused and the petitioners 2 and 3 at Hyderabad. The only reference to the petitioners 3 and 4 is to the effect that, whenever they were visiting the home where the accused No.1 and the 3rd respondent were residing, they were taunting the third respondent for not being able to conceive, such vague allegations without any specific details as to on what date and when the said taunting was resorted to by petitioners 3 and 4 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tie-Breaker Lottery Clause In Tender Document

Case Title: G Venkata Ramana v. The State Of Ap and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 331/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 74

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to declare a lottery clause in a tender document, which envisaged that in case two bidders quote lowest commission, the tie will be broken based on draw of lottery— as arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held, “…the said clause, impugned in the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as arbitrary. In fact, the said clause was incorporated as part of fairness in the selection process. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, even without participating in the tender process, approached this Court.”

Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside 1996 Govt Memo Requiring Anti-Corruption Officials To Obtain Sanction Of CM Before Probing Bureaucrats

Case Title: C.narayana v. State Of AP and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1550/2009

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 75

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared unconstitutional a 1996 government memo, which mandated Anti-Corruption Bureau officials to obtain the prior sanction of the Chief Minister before initiating enquiries, laying traps and registering cases against officers of the All India Services and Heads of Departments.

A division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, referred to the case of Vineet Narayan v. Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 889], where the Supreme Court had dealt with the legality of obtaining prior sanction of designated authority before initiating investigation against officers above a certain level and had held that accusation of corruption, in bribery and like cases, including trap cases, is based on direct evidence, and the level or status of the offender in such cases is irrelevant.

In light of these observations, the High Court held,

“…the executive orders of the State Governments in violation thereof had become inoperative, illegal and unconstitutional. As a corollary, the instructions contained in the impugned memo in contradistinction to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not survive. Further, as rightly stated in the counter affidavit, necessity of prior sanction provided in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only for prosecution but not for investigation.”

S.88 Of CGST Act Can't Be Used To Recover Dues Arising Under Central Excise Act From Directors Of Liquidated Company: Andhra Pradesh HC

Case Title: Ravindra Muthavarapu v. The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos.17995, 17997, 18001, 18018, 18019 & 18024 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 76

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot be used by the Excise Department to recover its dues from the directors of a liquidated company.

Section 88(3) states that the tax, interest or penalty of a private company, which has been wondup can be recovered from the directors of the company, subject to certain conditions, when such tax, penalty and interest is determined under the CGST Act.

A division bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao observed, “This can only mean that tax, penalty or interest which had been determined under the CGST Act, alone can be recovered from the directors of private company which are under liquidation, subject to the condition set out in Section 88(3) of the CGST Act.”

'Basis For Enquiry Is A Myth': Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Relief To Employee Denied Notional Benefits Over Anticipated Dept Enquiry

Case Title: Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State Of Ap and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 15505/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 77

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has given relief to an employee who was reinstated into service after initial suspension, but was denied benefits of seniority and promotion under the guise of an anticipated departmental enquiry.

In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan, observed,

“…5th respondent as on today not initiated any disciplinary action even after lapse of almost two years. The same itself would go to show that respondents are not contemplating to initiate any disciplinary proceedings. The powers of suspension provided under Rule 8(1) presuppose that the respondents would initiate enquiry. In the present case the very basis for initiation of such enquiry found to be myth in view of the fact that no such action has been initiated as of now, the very issuance of suspension proceedings is clearly in violation and contrary to the aforesaid provision.”