NDPS Act — Bail — Non-commercial quantity of ganja — Statutory period over — Grant of bail (Paras 4–6) Issue: Whether accused charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is entitled to regular bail. Facts: Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested in Crime No.60 of 2026 for alleged possession of 14 kilograms of ganja and remained in judicial custody from 05.03.2026; defence contended that quantity involved was non-commercial and statutory period had expired. Held: Considering that contraband involved was only 14 kilograms of ganja, constituting non-commercial quantity, and statutory period was over, Court enlarged accused on bail pending investigation. (Paras 4–6)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

NDPS Act — Bail — Non-commercial quantity of ganja — Statutory period over — Grant of bail (Paras 4–6)

Issue: Whether accused charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is entitled to regular bail.
Facts: Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested in Crime No.60 of 2026 for alleged possession of 14 kilograms of ganja and remained in judicial custody from 05.03.2026; defence contended that quantity involved was non-commercial and statutory period had expired.
Held: Considering that contraband involved was only 14 kilograms of ganja, constituting non-commercial quantity, and statutory period was over, Court enlarged accused on bail pending investigation. (Paras 4–6)

---

Bail — Pending investigation — Apprehension of absconding — Balancing liberty and investigation (Paras 5–7)

Issue: Whether bail should be denied on ground that investigation was still pending and accused may abscond.
Facts: Prosecution opposed bail contending that release of accused during pendency of investigation may hamper investigation and enable him to evade process of law.
Held: Court balanced investigation concerns by granting bail subject to stringent conditions including weekly appearance before Station House Officer, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence and surrender of passport. (Paras 5–7)

---

Bail conditions — Violation — Liberty to seek cancellation (Paras 6–7)

Issue: Effect of breach of bail conditions imposed by Court.
Facts: While granting bail, Court imposed conditions relating to execution of bond, appearance before police, non-interference with witnesses and surrender of passport.
Held: In event of violation of any bail condition, prosecution was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail. (Paras 6–7) 

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))