Electricity Act — Section 42(5) — Consumer Fora jurisdiction — Not barred by existence of Electricity Redressal Forum (Paras 3–6) Issue: Whether District Consumer Commission lacks jurisdiction in disputes relating to electricity matters because of remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Facts: Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited challenged orders of District Consumer Commissions contending that grievances relating to electricity supply and compensation could be adjudicated only by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Electricity Act. Held: Following earlier Division Bench judgment in APSPDCL v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court held that provisions of the Electricity Act do not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; remedy under Section 42(5) is only additional and not exclusive. (Paras 3–6)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Electricity Act — Section 42(5) — Consumer Fora jurisdiction — Not barred by existence of Electricity Redressal Forum (Paras 3–6)

Issue: Whether District Consumer Commission lacks jurisdiction in disputes relating to electricity matters because of remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Facts: Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited challenged orders of District Consumer Commissions contending that grievances relating to electricity supply and compensation could be adjudicated only by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Electricity Act.
Held: Following earlier Division Bench judgment in APSPDCL v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court held that provisions of the Electricity Act do not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; remedy under Section 42(5) is only additional and not exclusive. (Paras 3–6)

---

Consumer Protection Act — Additional remedy — Electricity disputes — Concurrent jurisdiction (Para 5)

Issue: Whether affected persons can simultaneously invoke remedies under Consumer Protection Act despite remedies under Electricity Act.
Facts: Petitioners argued that victims of electrical accidents and electricity disputes must approach only forums constituted under Electricity Act.
Held: Sections 173 to 175 of the Electricity Act make it clear that remedies under Consumer Protection Act operate in addition to remedies under Electricity Act; affected persons are entitled to approach Consumer Fora for redressal. (Para 5)

---

Writ jurisdiction — Alternative statutory remedy — Relegation to appellate remedy under Consumer Protection Act (Paras 5–7)

Issue: Whether writ petitions challenging orders of Consumer Commissions should be entertained.
Facts: Electricity authorities questioned orders passed by District Consumer Commissions directly before High Court though appellate remedies were available under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Held: Since statutory appeals are available against orders of Consumer Fora and disputed questions are matters for adjudication before appropriate forums, writ petitions were dismissed granting liberty to avail alternative remedies under Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 5–7) 

Direction to file charge sheet impermissible (Paras 6–7) Issue: Whether High Court can direct investigating agency to file charge sheet during pendency of investigation. Facts: Petitioner sought direction to police to conclude investigation in Crime No.388 of 2024 and file charge sheet relating to offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and BNSS; prosecution submitted that investigation was still in progress. Held: Relying on A. Shankar v. State, the Court held that High Court should not direct filing of charge sheet at investigation stage, since such direction would curtail discretion of investigating officer and amount to improper exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 6–7)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT

Investigation — Power of High Court under Article 226 — Direction to file charge sheet impermissible (Paras 6–7)

Issue: Whether High Court can direct investigating agency to file charge sheet during pendency of investigation.
Facts: Petitioner sought direction to police to conclude investigation in Crime No.388 of 2024 and file charge sheet relating to offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and BNSS; prosecution submitted that investigation was still in progress.
Held: Relying on A. Shankar v. State, the Court held that High Court should not direct filing of charge sheet at investigation stage, since such direction would curtail discretion of investigating officer and amount to improper exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 6–7)

---

Investigation — Fair, impartial and effective investigation — Duty of police (Paras 5, 8)

Issue: Whether investigating officer can be directed to complete investigation expeditiously.
Facts: Though FIR was registered on 31.12.2024, petitioner alleged that no substantial progress was made and charge sheet was not filed.
Held: Investigating Officer is duty bound to conduct fair, impartial and effective investigation and take investigation to its logical conclusion in accordance with law; accordingly, police were directed to complete investigation within reasonable time and file either charge sheet or final report before jurisdictional Magistrate. (Paras 5, 8)

---

Criminal procedure — Absconding accused — Filing of charge sheet permissible (Para 8)

Issue: Whether pendency of absconding accused prevents filing of charge sheet.
Facts: Court considered situation where some accused may not be available during completion of investigation.
Held: Investigating Officer is at liberty to file charge sheet by showing absconding accused as absconding, without waiting indefinitely for their apprehension. (Para 8)

Temple reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) — Repetition without basis — Impermissibility (Paras 2–5, 8) Issue: Whether fresh reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) of idols in temple can be undertaken after reconsecration was already completed in 2024. Facts: Villagers and devotees of Sri Someshwara Swamy Sri Seetharamalayamu Temple alleged that unofficial respondents were attempting to replace Shiva Lingam and idols of Sri Ramulavaru, Sri Seethamma Thalli, Lakshmana and Anjaneya Swamy for conducting another Punah-pratishta, though reconsecration ceremonies had already been completed on 19.03.2024 and regular worship was continuing thereafter. Held: Since reconsecration had already been completed in 2024 and no valid basis for conducting another Punah-pratishta was shown, respondents were directed not to permit any fresh reconsecration in the temple. (Paras 2–5, 8)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT

Temple reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) — Repetition without basis — Impermissibility (Paras 2–5, 8)

Issue: Whether fresh reconsecration (Punah-pratishta) of idols in temple can be undertaken after reconsecration was already completed in 2024.
Facts: Villagers and devotees of Sri Someshwara Swamy Sri Seetharamalayamu Temple alleged that unofficial respondents were attempting to replace Shiva Lingam and idols of Sri Ramulavaru, Sri Seethamma Thalli, Lakshmana and Anjaneya Swamy for conducting another Punah-pratishta, though reconsecration ceremonies had already been completed on 19.03.2024 and regular worship was continuing thereafter.
Held: Since reconsecration had already been completed in 2024 and no valid basis for conducting another Punah-pratishta was shown, respondents were directed not to permit any fresh reconsecration in the temple. (Paras 2–5, 8)

---

Endowments — Apprehension unsupported by record — Writ disposed based on official instructions (Paras 4–5, 7)

Issue: Whether there existed any actual proposal by Endowments Department for fresh reconsecration.
Facts: District Endowments Officer informed Court through written instructions that reconsecration had already been completed two years earlier, regular poojas and festivals were being conducted peacefully by villagers, and no proposal existed for fresh Punah-pratishta.
Held: In absence of any substantiated proposal for reconsecration and in light of official instructions denying such activity, Court found apprehension of petitioners unsupported by record. (Paras 4–5, 7)

---

Endowments Act — Local management of notified temple — Limited departmental control (Para 6)

Issue: Whether temple was under direct administrative control of Endowments Department.
Facts: Though temple was a notified institution, its affairs including poojas and administration were being managed by village elders and devotees, and temple income was stated to be below ₹5,00,000/-.
Held: Court observed that temple did not appear to be under direct control of Endowments Department, possibly due to applicability of Sections 15 to 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 relating to institutions with lesser income. (Para 6) 

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendenc...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendenc...: advocatemmmohan AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT  SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendency of S.A. — Availability of alternative remedy be...

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendency of S.A. — Availability of alternative remedy before DRT (Paras 4–8)

Issue: Whether writ petition is maintainable challenging fresh sale notice issued during pendency of securitisation application before DRT.
Facts: Petitioners/guarantors challenged fresh auction notice dated 17.02.2026 issued by Union Bank of India during pendency of S.A.No.713 of 2025 before DRT; earlier auction notice dated 28.10.2025 was already under challenge and interim order staying confirmation of sale was operating, but sale failed for want of bidders.
Held: Since petitioners have effective remedy before DRT either by filing fresh S.A. or interlocutory application challenging subsequent sale notice, High Court relegated parties to DRT while granting limited protection. (Paras 4–8)

---

SARFAESI proceedings — Interim protection — Status quo pending consideration by DRT (Para 8(i))

Issue: Whether interim protection should be granted pending consideration of challenge to fresh auction notice.
Facts: Petitioners sought stay of auction scheduled pursuant to fresh sale notice dated 17.02.2026 contending that challenge to earlier measures was pending before DRT.
Held: Petitioners were permitted to approach DRT within one week challenging fresh sale notice, and meanwhile, status quo existing as on date of order was directed to be maintained till DRT passed orders on such application. (Para 8(i))

---

Debt Recovery Tribunal — Expeditious disposal — Duty of parties to cooperate (Para 8(ii))

Issue: Whether time-bound directions for disposal of securitisation application are warranted.
Facts: S.A.No.713 of 2025 challenging SARFAESI measures remained pending while parties continued interlocutory litigation relating to auction notices and OTS proposals.
Held: Parties were directed to cooperate with DRT for expeditious hearing, and DRT was requested to dispose of S.A. preferably within two months after completion of arguments. (Para 8(ii)) 

Passport — Minor child — Application by single mother — Consent/signature of father not mandatory in absence of prohibitory order (Paras 7–14) Issue: Whether passport authorities can insist upon consent of father or divorce decree for issuing passport to minor child when application is made by mother as single parent. Facts: Petitioner, living separately from husband since 2022 due to matrimonial disputes and pending criminal/DV proceedings, applied for passport for her 4-year-old daughter by submitting Annexures-C and D declaring herself as single parent; passport authorities orally insisted upon divorce/judicial separation decree or father’s consent. Held: Under the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, a single parent can apply for passport of minor child without consent/signature of other parent if prescribed declarations are furnished and there is no prohibitory order of competent Court. Respondents directed to process and issue passport. (Paras 7–14)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Passport — Minor child — Application by single mother — Consent/signature of father not mandatory in absence of prohibitory order (Paras 7–14)

Issue: Whether passport authorities can insist upon consent of father or divorce decree for issuing passport to minor child when application is made by mother as single parent.
Facts: Petitioner, living separately from husband since 2022 due to matrimonial disputes and pending criminal/DV proceedings, applied for passport for her 4-year-old daughter by submitting Annexures-C and D declaring herself as single parent; passport authorities orally insisted upon divorce/judicial separation decree or father’s consent.
Held: Under the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, a single parent can apply for passport of minor child without consent/signature of other parent if prescribed declarations are furnished and there is no prohibitory order of competent Court. Respondents directed to process and issue passport. (Paras 7–14)

---

Passports — Annexure-C declaration — Sufficiency — Refusal on technical grounds impermissible (Paras 5, 9–13)

Issue: Whether passport application of minor can be kept pending for want of supporting divorce/judicial separation documents despite submission of Annexure-C.
Facts: Petitioner submitted Annexure-C and D declarations explaining absence of father’s consent and pendency of matrimonial disputes, but respondents kept application on hold stating that supporting legal documents were not furnished.
Held: Once Annexure-C declaration explaining absence of consent is furnished, authorities are bound to consider application in accordance with Rules; insistence on divorce decree or judicial separation proceedings is contrary to statutory scheme and settled law. (Paras 5, 9–13)

---

Constitution of India — Article 21 — Right to travel abroad — Minor child and single parent — Liberal interpretation (Paras 8–13)

Issue: Whether denial of passport to minor child due to non-consent of estranged father violates constitutional rights.
Facts: Minor child was in exclusive custody of mother and no proceedings prohibiting issuance of passport were pending against petitioner; authorities nevertheless refused to process application.
Held: Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution; administrative authorities cannot mechanically deny passport to minor child merely because estranged father withheld consent, particularly when single parent complied with prescribed procedure. (Paras 8–13