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

Nominal Index

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Lakshmi – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98

Bhashyam Venkata Rao and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 99

Tappa Abdul Rasool v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 100

Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 101

Dr. A. Himabindu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 102

Kosuri Radha Vs. The State of AP and others – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 103

Judgments/Final Orders

Motor Vehicles Act | 'Excavator' Falls Within Definition Of 'Motor Vehicle' U/S 2(28): Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Lakshmi
Case Number: MACMA No. 146 of 2012
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 98

The 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 Community

Case Title: Bhashyam Venkata Rao and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number: W.P.No. 34697 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 99

The 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 Court

Case Title: Tappa Abdul Rasool v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. No. 18214 of 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 100

The 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 individual".

Police Should Refrain From Entering Into Land Dispute Under Guise Of Amicable Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 13086/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 101

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that police authorities should refrain from interfering into civil disputes pertaining to land, under the guise of amicable settlement between parties.

Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in his order said,

“…when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes.”

AP High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Decrease Of Reserved PG Medical Seats For In-Service Candidates, Says Reduction Was Favoured By Stats

Case Title: Dr. A. Himabindu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.22643 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 102

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of reserved seats for in-service candidates in Post graduate Medical Courses in state government quota.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, examined the relevant observations of the committee which propounded that the reservation policy for in-service candidates was introduced to fill specialist vacancies in medical services, which further led to a significant increase in available specialists and a reduction in vacancies. With a rise in PG seats in both government and private colleges, more in-service candidates qualified. However, the report also highlighted that in certain specialties, the number of qualified in-service candidates exceeded the available posts, making it difficult to accommodate them.

In light of this, the Court held,

“The report, placed before this Court, by the 1st respondent sets out, in detail, the number of seats that would be available. The statistics set out in this report clearly make a case for reduction of the seats that are made available to in-service candidates. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the reduction of seats, for in-service candidates, has been made on a predetermined basis cannot be accepted.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Removal Of Livestock Body's Nominated Member, Says Collector Had No Express Power

Case Title: Kosuri Radha Vs. The State of AP and others

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.684 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 103

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an order by the single judge who had invoked the Doctrine of Pleasure to uphold removal of a nominated member from the General Body of the District Livestock Development Association, Ongole.

Referring to the facts of the case, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in its order said:

“…while the byelaws did envisage nomination by the Collector to the General Body of the Society, there was no power specifically envisaged as per the byelaws which could authorize the Collector to curtail the tenure prematurely of such nominated members. While there is no doubt that the initial nomination of the petitioner was based on political considerations, yet for purposes of invoking the pleasure doctrine, there ought to have been a specific power vested in the Collector to terminate such an appointment, in the absence whereof, the said doctrine, in our opinion, could not have been invoked to justify the issuance of the order impugned in the writ petition.”

"In the present case, in the absence of there being any specific power vested with the Government to remove a nominated Member which can be otherwise traced to a statute and in the absence of any such specific power being traced to the Government in terms of the byelaws, in our opinion, the Government could not have issued directions seeking the resignation or removal of the nominated members," the court added.