Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025
Nominal Index:
Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The Excessive Courtroom Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 110
Okay.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Govt Officer waqf And three Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 111
Sri Potti Sriramulu Higher Main SPSUP College vs The State Of AP & Ors: LiveLaw (2025) AP 112
M/s Chaitanya Excessive College v. The Authorities of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw (2025) AP 113
Okay 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 Financial institution of India v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 117
The Indian Cement Restricted 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 Belief and Others Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw (2025) AP 123
MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 124
Last Orders/Judgments:
Case Quantity- W.P. No. 26386 of 2023
Case Identify- Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum Vs. The Excessive Courtroom Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 110
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a plea of a Civil Choose (Junior Division) applicant, who sought appointment below the BC-E class within the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Companies, and had her candidature rejected on account of non-compliance with eligibility situations.
Following the publication of a recruitment commercial, the petitioner had submitted her non-creamy layer certificates a lot after your entire choice course of had concluded. On this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati defined,
“In accordance with the commercial notification, it was made clear to the petitioner and equally located others that any applicant who supposed to avail the reservation needed to add the non-creamy layer certificates, and in case of failure to add the identical, that the candidate can be thought of below the open benefit class. The petitioner, subsequently, was required to add the requisite certificates earlier than the final date for software prescribed within the commercial notification, i.e., 8.12.2022, and subsequently, clearly her case couldn’t have been thought of in any class besides the open class as had clearly been made clear within the stated notification.”
Case Quantity: WRIT APPEAL NO: 845/2016
Case Title: Okay.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Govt Officer waqf And three Others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 111
In a big ruling, the Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom held that the Waqf Board is authorised below Part 65(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act of 1995) to take over the administration of a mosque in circumstances of evident mismanagement, regardless of the existence of a judicially formulated scheme governing the administration of the mosque.
Within the current case, the mismanagement of Shahji Jamia Mosque, Adoni, was in query, the place misappropriation of roughly Rs.150 crores of property and violations of the Act of 1995 was concerned, together with a failure to submit annual revenue accounts, funds proposals, and expenditure statements.
On this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“Relating to overriding impact of the provisions of the Waqf Act by advantage of Part 108A, as rightly contended by the realized counsel for the petitioners, the identical shall be learn along with Part 32 of the Act. Upon such, the tip outcome can be that the Board could have basic superintendence in order to make sure that waqf properties are correctly maintained, managed and administered and revenue thereof is duly utilized to the objects and for the needs for which such waqf was created, nonetheless, such a superintendence, shall be topic to any scheme made by any Courtroom of regulation, whether or not earlier than or after the graduation of the Act.”
Case Quantity- W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch
Case Identify- Sri Potti Sriramulu Higher Main SPSUP College vs The State Of AP & Ors.
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 112
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has struck down the Laptop-Primarily based Check (CBT) methodology for the choice and appointment of academics in colleges receiving grant-in-aid.
Within the absence of a laws allowing the Govt to introduce a brand new system of choice and appointment of academics, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,
“Howsoever laudable the thing of the proposed conduct of Laptop Primarily based Check (CBT) could also be, the identical can’t be launched with out being backed-up by a laws or a subordinate laws. It definitely can’t be finished by way of an govt destiny both within the type of an govt instruction or govt order. When the system which had been launched for conducting Laptop primarily based take a look at had been expressly put aside by placing down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state can’t launched the identical system not directly by an govt order or an govt instruction, for, what you can’t do instantly, you can’t do it not directly both.”
The Single Choose added,
“Though, the Courtroom takes word of the rise within the competitors and in addition improve within the variety of functions for filling up the trainer posts, the state might take steps in bringing in an acceptable laws or subordinate laws for introducing the brand new system that could be commensurate with the present wants and exigencies. Until such time, the State has not introduced in a laws or subordinate laws by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting the Rule-13 of the Guidelines-1994, the State can’t launched the Laptop Primarily based Check (CBT).”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION No.27468 OF 2013
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya Excessive College v. The Authorities of Andhra Pradesh
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 113
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has directed the State Authorities to contemplate enhancing the pre-matric scholarship quantity for M/s Chaitanya Excessive College—a college chosen below the Greatest Obtainable Faculties (BAS) Scheme in SPSR Nellore District—on par with related colleges in different districts who have been sanctioned the next quantity.
Highlighting that no causes have been accorded explaining the denial of the complete scholarship quantity of Rs.20,000 per scholar to the petitioner faculty, regardless of a positive suggestion by the District Degree Committee (DLC), Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held,
“Even in keeping with rules of pure justice, the authorities should disclose causes for arriving at such conclusion and it’s only to allow the individual to know the rationale for passing any antagonistic order towards him. When the choice taken by the respondents is bigoted, such motion might be struck down on the bottom of arbitrariness as it’s hit by Article 14 of the Structure of India. The phrase “Arbitrariness‟ is the standard of being “decided by likelihood, whim, or impulse, and never by necessity, purpose, or precept”. Article 14 of the Indian Structure ensures to each citizen the Proper to Equality. It applies the precept of Equality earlier than the regulation and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between individuals.”
The Courtroom added,
“…because the petitioners fall below the class of Greatest Obtainable Faculties, the respondents are directed to contemplate the petitioners colleges for enhancement of pre-matric scholarship quantity below Greatest Obtainable Faculties Scheme and improve the quantity of Rs.15,000/- to Lessons III & IV; Rs.20,000/- to Class V to X per scholar each year, on par with different Greatest Obtainable Faculties. The respondents shall pay the arrears to the petitioners’ colleges together with curiosity @ 6% each year, inside three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Case Quantity: WP 7886/2025
Case Title: Okay S VIJAY ANAND v. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 114
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom granted reduction to a senior-most highschool trainer who was transferred regardless of the presence of two junior academics, below the pretext of adjusting surplus aided employees to needy aided colleges within the Nandyal District.
The plea sought a course 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, College Schooling (PS) Division dated 22.06.2023, on the bottom of “work adjustment of surplus aided academics into the needy Aided Faculties in Nandyal District”.
Justice Challa Gunaranjan in his order stated,
“Plain studying of aforesaid clause goes to indicate that both on one’s willingness to just accept switch or if it’s a obligatory switch, the identical has to start from junior most within the class of the publish. Apparently, within the current case, there are three Secondary Grade Academics working, of which petitioner is senior most amongst them. When it comes to aforesaid pointers, one that is junior most must be first deputed on switch and solely thereafter, petitioner might have been transferred. The impugned order to the extent of transferring petitioner who’s senior most with out exhausting the transfers of juniors is clearly in contravention of the aforesaid clause.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 5435 OF 2025
Case Title: VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF AP
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 115
In a judgment dated Could 06, the Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has upheld the enhancement of the minimal annual turnover threshold for bidders—from 5 crores to 10 crores—for qualification below a Authorities Tender issued for printing and distribution of faculty textbooks/workbooks for college kids finding out in non-public colleges for the Educational Years 2025-2026 & 2026-2027.
Reaffirming the appropriate of the Authorities to prescribe or modify the tender situations “at will”, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad noticed,
“…this Courtroom is of the view that reference to such Tender situations has no relevance inasmuch as each particular person Authority has at all times proper to both prescribe or to switch the Tender situations “at will”. One idiomatic expression states that “Monkeys can’t resolve the affairs of the forest‟ likewise, a bidder can by no means dictate the employer or the Authorities Authority with regard to the fixation of tender situations or the parameters.”
The Courtroom thus held,
“…that the rise of the brink with regard to the turnover from 5 crores each year to 10 crores each year is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This Courtroom can be of the opinion that giving latitude to the bidders to indicate the minimal turnover of ten crores for 2 years interval over the past 5 monetary years can be not arbitrary. The info within the current case would additionally point out that out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders have reached the brink of turnover of ten crores. Subsequently, it can’t be stated that fixation of the ten crores threshold is bigoted in nature neither is it discriminative in any method as a result of out of the 13 bidders, 8 bidders have been certified within the technical bid.”
Case Quantity: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5701/2025
Case Title: Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 116
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has refused to grant bail to former Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Fee (A1) and a consultant of M/s. Camsign Media Pvt. Ltd. (A2), a non-public firm entrusted with the handbook analysis of Group-I fundamental examination reply scripts, who have been accused of prison breach of belief and irregularities within the handbook analysis course of, together with shifting of reply scripts to a non-public location and using unqualified faculty academics for analysis.
Whereas A1 had urged the invocation of Part 197 of CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the federal government earlier than a Courtroom can take cognizance of an offence allegedly dedicated by a public servant whereas appearing within the discharge of their official obligation, Justice Kiranmayee Mandava held,
“…except it’s established that the alleged act was in extra of discharge of his official duties, and there’s a cheap connection between the act and the efficiency of official obligation, the safety below Part 197 of the Cr.P.C., wouldn’t come up. Within the info and circumstances of the current case, because the investigation is on the threshold, the safety as envisaged below Part 197 of Cr.P.C., wouldn’t enure to the advantage of the petitioner A-1.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 12247 of 2024
Case Title: Central Financial institution of India v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 117
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has upheld the appropriate of Central Financial institution of India (petitioner) to get well its secured money owed by sale of the mortgaged property below the Restoration of Money owed and Chapter Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and has dominated that it assumes precedence over the claims of the State Authorities for restoration of dues below the Andhra Pradesh Worth Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT Act).
On account of particular statutory provisions that granted secured collectors precedence over different money owed and authorities dues, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,
“…it may be seen that now there’s a particular provision offering for precedence in favour of the secured collectors, to comprehend the secured money owed, due and payable to them, over all different money owed and Authorities dues, now we have no hesitation to carry that the appropriate of the petitioner Financial institution to get well its dues by sale of the secured asset would have precedence over the arrears which have been sought to be recovered by the respondent State below the provisions of the A.P. Worth Added Tax Act, 2005.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 14515/2025
Case Title: The Indian Cement Restricted v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 118
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has directed the State authorities to increase efficient police safety to Indian Cement Restricted (petitioner), a subsidiary of UltraTech Cements, in mild of escalating tensions and disruption of operations brought on by contract labourers, allegedly upon the instigation of an area politician.
Taking severe word of the regulation and order scenario prevailing within the manufacturing unit premises of the petitioner, Justice Harinath N noticed,
“Upkeep of regulation and order is the duty of the State. A producing unit established in a distant space of the State, which has generated direct and oblique employment to a number of individuals, can’t be left within the lurch and bleed. It is usually not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying taxes to the State and paying GST. Abrupt closure of the unit would end in a loss to the exchequer on account of non-payment of taxes.”
“As seen from the submission of the realized counsel for the petitioner and the realized Authorities Pleader, it’s amply clear {that a} regular ambiance shouldn’t be prevailing close to the petitioner’s manufacturing unit and an uneasy pressure is within the air. This Courtroom deems it acceptable to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take all needed and required steps to take care of regulation and order and to make sure free ingress and egress of males and materials. Sufficient and efficient police safety is to be prolonged to the petitioner firm to restart its actions.” the Courtroom added.
Case Quantity: Legal Petition No.6783/2022
Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 119
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has held {that a} transgender girl in heterosexual marriage can file a criticism towards her husband and in-laws below Part 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa emphasised {that a} transgender girl, figuring out as a feminine and residing in a conjugal relationship with a person, can’t be excluded from the safety of legal guidelines meant to safeguard ladies from dowry-related harassment and cruelty.
“A transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, can’t be disadvantaged of her proper to lodge a criticism towards her husband or the family of her husband,” it noticed.
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 41332/2016
Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 120
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has rejected the plea of a retired worker of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Energy Distribution Firm Restricted (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Start (DOB) within the official service data, after having acquired all promotions and repair advantages primarily based on the identical date.
On this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam noticed,
“Petitioner on the fag finish of his profession when his superannuation was approaching, most well-liked representations to the respondent authorities, by merely blaming the respondents as if his Date of Start had been modified. However, the petitioner shouldn’t be in a position to substantiate his assertion relating to the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Start within the service File. Within the absence of the prerequisite foundational info relating to his case, it isn’t apt for this Courtroom to enter an area which is only a disputed query of truth, whereas exercising the powers below Article 226 of the Structure of India. It is usually evident from the document that, didn’t increase any objection with respect to the Seniority Checklist ready by the respondents’ company even at present. However for the sake of extension of his companies after 28 years of service from the date of becoming a member of, he’s disputing his date of start within the service register.”
Commenting that the case comes inside the ambit of doctrine of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, the Courtroom added,
“The petitioner himself produced his Instructional Certificates issued by the involved District Schooling Officer on his personal volition, by which his Date of Start is acknowledged as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the model of the respondents Company. However, on the fag finish of his profession, he has taken the plea that’s date of start is 25.08.1961, in order to increase his service and obtain its consequential advantages. Thus, the case of the petitioner instantly comes below the ambit of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, which typically phrases means one can’t benefit from one half whereas rejecting the remainder. In different phrases, an individual can’t be allowed to have the benefit of a doc whereas difficult the identical. In such an occasion, the petitioner both has to affirm or disaffirm the stated transaction.”
Case Quantity: WP No. 2618 of 2024
Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 121
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom allowed a person’s plea towards the choice of the Waqf Tribunal which had adjudicated on a swimsuit regarding a disputed land, even if a civil courtroom had determined the matter 45 years in the past giving a discovering that the disputed property shouldn’t be a waqf property.
The courtroom thus stated that the Waqf Tribunal doesn’t have the facility to adjudicate any case which is the subject-matter of a swimsuit filed earlier than the civil courtroom earlier than the graduation of the Waqf Act, or any attraction/decree arising out of such a swimsuit.
Reiterating that the Tribunal can’t entertain a swimsuit searching for declaration of title over the land which was already adjudicated upon by a reliable Civil Courtroom, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held,
“When a reliable Civil Courtroom recorded a discovering in an earlier swimsuit that the property doesn’t belong to the wakf establishment, the current swimsuit filed by the wakf establishment after a lapse of 41⁄2 a long time for declaration of title, within the thought of opinion of this Courtroom, shouldn’t be maintainable given Part 7(5) of the Act. The current Mutavalli, the son of the sooner Mutavalli who misplaced the swimsuit on an earlier event, awoke from deep slumber and filed the current swimsuit after 41⁄2 a long time. As soon as Part 7(5) of the Act comes into motion, the Tribunal, at no stretch of creativeness, can proceed the swimsuit on its file for additional adjudication. The corollary can be that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and therefore, a writ of prohibition might be issued within the info of this case.”
‘Ganja’ Seeds, Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Quantity: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5306/2025
Case Title: Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 122
In a judgement dated 23.06.2025, the Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has held that the definition of ‘Ganja’ below the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is proscribed to the flowering or fruiting tops of the hashish plant, and excludes from its ambit the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa defined,
“As rightly put by the realized counsel for the petitioner, the definition of Ganja below NDPS Act takes in its ambit solely the flowering or fruiting tops of hashish plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of ‘Ganja’ is restricted and it doesn’t embrace the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 15594/2025
Case Title: Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Belief and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 123
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has granted permission to a belief which manages Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple (petitioner) positioned in Tiruchanur close to Tirupati, to conduct the Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu–9 day Navratri competition–from June 26 to July 5.
In an order handed on June 16 the petitioner, together with one Y Gangi Reddy (Respondent 7)- with whom the petitioner was concerned in a land dispute, have been barred by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Respondent 5) from coming into the land on which the Belief was located and the place the competition was supposed to be carried out.
In opposition to this backdrop, Justice Harinath N noticed,
“The impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025 shall stand suspended until 06.07.2025. The sixth (SHO) respondent shall lengthen needed bundobust to the petitioner/Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Belief for performing the proposed “Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu” from 26.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The petitioner additionally shall cooperate with the sixth respondent and be sure that the no regulation and order downside is created on account of the permission granted.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024
Case Title: MAGINENI SHANMUKHA VINAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Quotation: LiveLaw (2025) AP 124
In a case involving the unlawful development of a bridge over a Canal in Andhra Pradesh’s Kaikaluru city, the Excessive Courtroom has known as for stringent legal guidelines that punish not solely public violators but in addition the federal government officers who flip a blind-eye to unlawful encroachments and violations on waterways.
Taking severe word of the detrimental affect of such encroachments and calling for legislative reforms that maintain officers accountable for sitting on such points, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad noticed,
“These violations on waterways and watercourses by which recent water or drainage water flows are damaging or destroying the natural world moreover inflicting humongous harm to the human inhabitations. In instances of flood, inundation of land by water change into digital death-traps for animals within the wild (in forests) in addition to to the people within the villages, cities and metropolitan cities. It is usually seen that the violators go scot-free with impunity as a result of the prevailing regulation, doesn’t have a deterrent impact. Subsequently, it’s the proper time for the Authorities (regulation makers) to make legal guidelines, guidelines and laws to weaponise the Authorities Departments to realize this objective. This regulation wants to deal with not solely the violators from among the many public, but in addition the Officers who conveniently flip a blind-eye to the acts of violation.”
Thereafter, in public curiosity, the Courtroom issued a number of pointers to fight the detriments of unlawful encroachments on waterways.
