Nominal Index

Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181

Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

Judgement/ Orders

S.397(2) CrPC | Order Refusing Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Is Interlocutory, Revision Not Maintainable: AP High Court

Case Title: Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 326 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 170

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a criminal revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

The Court clarified that such an order does not determine the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Unregistered Sale Agreement Delivering Possession Can't Be Marked As Evidence Without Payment Of Stamp Duty: AP High Court

Case Title: Devathi Ravi Kumar v. Smt. Botla Rama Devi

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 957 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 171

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where an agreement of sale specifically recites delivery of possession, the document attracts stamp duty and penalty, and cannot be received in evidence unless it is duly stamped.

Dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, the Court upheld the trial court's order refusing to mark an unregistered agreement of sale-cum-possession as an exhibit in a suit for specific performance.

AP High Court Asks Endowments Department To Decide Representation For Temple Trustee Post After Hearing Applicant

Case Title: Adury Venkatramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 673 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 172

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Endowment Department to decide a representation seeking appointment as a member of a Temple Trust Board after affording the applicant a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Taking note of the petitioner's grievance, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Failure To Place Relevant Material Before District Magistrate Vitiates Preventive Detention Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Siddabattula Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2362 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 173

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after observing the relevant material was not placed before the District Magistrate while passing the detention order.

Holding that such non-consideration vitiates the detention, the Court set aside both the detention order and the Government's confirmation order, while leaving it open to the authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Deceased's Car Hitting Offending Vehicle From Behind Not Contributory Negligence In Absence Of Evidence: AP High Court

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dasari Anuradha and Others

Case No.: MACMA No. 1913 of 2010

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 174

Enhancing a motor accident award, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that deceased's car dashing into the offending vehicle from behind is not enough for Insurance Company to claim contributory negligence in absence of rebuttal evidence particularly of the offending vehicle's driver.

Dismissing an appeal filed by the insurer, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased marine engineer from Rs. 41.10 lakh to Rs. 62.77 lakh after finding that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third towards personal expenses, failed to award future prospects, and applied an incorrect multiplier.

Retrospective Change In Probation Date Can't Be Used To Alter Settled Seniority, Violates Service Rules & Natural Justice: AP High Court

Case Title: Karothu Surya Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6546 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 175

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee's seniority has attained finality after rendering long years of service, the authorities cannot revise it by changing the date of probation after a long lapse of time.

The Court further held that such action, taken without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, is hit by the principles of natural justice and violates the applicable service rules.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a Senior Assistant of a temple, The Court set aside the revised seniority list that retrospectively changed the petitioner's date of probation, resulting in his juniors being promoted ahead of him and recovery proceedings being initiated against him. The Court directed the authorities to restore his appropriate place in the seniority list with all consequential benefits, including promotion on par with his juniors.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 'Stale' Grounds, Ignored Bail Orders

Case Title: Ponna Roja v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 5684 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 176

Reiterating that preventive detention is an exceptional measure, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that it cannot be invoked on the basis of stale criminal cases that have lost their "live and proximate link" with the need for detention.

The Court also held that where the detenu has already been granted bail in the criminal cases forming the basis of the detention order, the detaining authority must consider those bail orders, as their non-consideration vitiates the authority's subjective satisfaction.

'Can't Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings': AP High Court Sets Aside Status Quo Order On Mutation Entries, Says No Such Prayer Was Made

Case Title: V. Chandrasekhar Naidu v. E. Muneendra & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 684 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 177

Granting partial relief in a land dispute, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a court cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings by directing parties to maintain status quo regarding mutation entries when no such relief has been sought in the writ petition.

The Court, however, reiterated that no person can be dispossessed except by following due process of law.

Regularisation Of Compassionate Appointee Must Be From Date Of Acquiring Qualification, Not Initial Appointment: AP High Court

Case Title: R. Thimmappa v. District Panchayat Officer & Ors. and connected matter

Case Nos.: W.P. Nos. 19384 of 2021 & 5774 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 178

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the revision of the date of regularisation of a Junior Assistant appointed on compassionate grounds, holding that an employee who did not possess the prescribed educational qualification on the date of appointment cannot claim regularisation from the date of initial appointment.

In doing so, the Court noted that regularisation can only take effect from the date on which the employee acquires the requisite qualification.

Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Be Used To Enforce Ex-Parte Custody Order Obtained Without Notice To Mother: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Ogirala Venkata Sai Sunil Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36437 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 179

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to enforce an ex parte custody order, after noting that the custody decree had been obtained without notice to the mother after the father furnished his own address as the mother's address instead of disclosing her actual address.

The Court further held that where a statutory remedy for enforcement is available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into that of an executing court.

Employees Can't Suffer For Employer's Record-Keeping Lapses: AP High Court Directs EPFO To Reconsider Retirees' Plea For Higher Pension

Case Title: Siddineni Venkateswara Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 25295 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 180

Granting relief to retired employees seeking higher pension, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot reject claims under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 solely for non-production of Form 6A, challans or other employer records, particularly in respect of periods prior to 2010.

The Court observed that employees cannot be made to suffer for lapses in employer record-keeping or deficiencies in the EPFO's own records.

Unexplained Delay In Deciding Detenu's Plea For Release Renders Continued Detention Illegal: AP High Court

Case Title: Cheemparthi Shaheen v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 34357 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 181

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a preventive detention order after holding that the continued detention of the detenu became illegal due to the State Government's unexplained delay in deciding his representation for release.

In doing so the court said that any unreasonable and unexplained delay in considering a representation violates the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution.

AP High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Despite Invalidity Of One Ground, Cites Severability Clause U/S 6 PIT-NDPS Act

Case Title: Dunga Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: WP No. 23639 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 182

Relying on the severability clause under Section 6 of thePrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that failure to satisfy the mandatory triple-test in respect of one of six grounds of detention does not invalidate the detention order as a whole.

The Court further noted that Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act embodies the principle of severability. It provides that where a detention order is based on two or more independent grounds, the invalidity of one ground does not render the entire order invalid, and the detention order is deemed to have been made separately on each of the remaining grounds.