APHC010196302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10040/2026 Between: 1. FERVID SMART SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, 4TH FLOOR, 59-8-7A, BHARATHI TOWERS, GADDE GOPALAKRISHNA STREET, VIJAYAWADA - 520008 REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, SRIKANTH PINNINTY, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 501, RUPA ENCLAVE, 4TH LANE, MANIKYA NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA.-520007 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM AND WARD SACHIVALAYAM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522238 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED 3RD FLOOR, R AND B BUILDING, OPP INDIRA GANDHI MUNICIPAL STADIUM M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520010. 3. THE DIRECTOR, GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM AND WARD SACHIVALAYAM DEPARTMENT @ SWARNA GRAMAM SWARNA WARDU DEPARTMENT PLOT NO.11 AND 12, NIRMAAN BHAVAN, APIIC COLONY ROAD, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520007. 4. E PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT, IT, E AND C, DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522238 . ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in 2 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly Respondent No. 3 in issuing proceedings vide File No. 3059446/GSWS/2025, dated 09.04.2026 cancelling the Purchase order dated 06.01.2026 issued to the petitioner invoking F.25(1), F.36 (1a and b) of RFP issued by the respondent No.2 by consequently forfeiting the bid security an amount of Rs. 69,47,169/- (Sixty Nine Lakhs, Forty Seven Thousand and One Hundred and Sixty Nine) as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India consequently set-aside the proceedings vide File No. 3059446/GSWS/2025, Dated 09.04.2026 by directing the Respondents to forthwith receive the 7512 Units of UPSs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the petitioners to deliver the 7512 Units of UPSs by suspending the proceedings vide File No. 3059446/GSWS/2025, dated 09.04.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to receive and take the documents - 1. Email sent by GSWS department 09.03.2026; 2. Documents and mails sent through emails sent by petitioner to respondents on 10.3.2026, 12.3.3036, 13.3.2026 (10:27AM), 13.3.2026 (3:05 PM), 13.03.2026 (5:21 PM), 17.3.2026, 25.3.3036, 9.4.2026 (8:26 AM), Email Sent by respondent 9.4.2026 (4. 11 PM) and document showing email ids of respondent officials (downloaded from official website) being filed along with this affidavit and petition and treat them as documents filed along with the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI MOHAN 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following Order: The 3rd respondent had engaged the 2nd respondent, for issuing a tender, calling for supply of 12,332 units of 1 KVA Line Interactive UPS systems for the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent floated a tender, dated 30.10.2025, for these UPS systems apart from desktop computers and printers. The present Writ Petition is in relation to the supply of UPS systems only. 2. The petitioner herein, was the successful bidder, being the lowest tenderer at the rate of Rs.5,581.40 per UPS unit. The petitioner had proposed supply of AVO 1000, 1 KVA Line Interactive UPS system with a warranty of three years and the same was accepted. Subsequently, the purchase order, dated 06.01.2026, was issued to the petitioner, by the 3rd respondent, for supply of the aforesaid UPS systems to be completed within eight weeks from the date of issuance. This date was 03.03.2026. 3. It also appears that an agreement executed between the parties, in terms of the purchase order, and a signed copy is available with the 3rd respondent. 4. On 19.01.2026, the petitioner informed the respondents, by way of an e-mail, that the supply of these UPS systems would be completed by 03.02.2026. Later, by e-mail, dated 16.02.2026, the petitioner sought extension of same time on the ground that there were unforeseen delays in sourcing these UPS systems. Apart from, this the petitioner also sought 4 approval for supply of an alternative brand, namely BPE (Model: BP1200). Thereafter certain discussions are said to have taken place after which the petitioner again requested an extension of time till 25.03.2026 to supply 7,500 units on account of force majeure conditions arising out of the global situation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh letter, dated 26.02.2026, stating that the petitioner would be supplying 7,500 units and that the remaining 4,947 units could be procured from the L2 bidder. The petitioner contends that it was forced to give such a letter. 5. On the basis of the said letter, dated 26.02.2026, given by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued a fresh purchase order, on 27.02.2026, to the L2 bidder for supply of 4,935 UPS units. At the same time, the petitioner was also called upon to supply the remaining 7,500 units to 16 Districts while leaving 10 Districts to be supplied by the L2 bidder. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a notice, dated 09.03.2026, directing the petitioner to immediately supply 7,512 units to the 16 Districts which were allotted to the petitioner. In reply, the petitioner addressed a representation, dated 10.03.2026, informing the 3rd respondent that the goods were in transit and would be received by 12.03.2026. Thereafter, on 12.03.2026, the petitioner confirmed receipt of the UPS units and sent photographs of the said units being received at the central warehouse of the petitioner in Vijayawada. 6. The petitioner is then said to have sent representations, by way of e-mail, dated 13.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, requesting the 3rd respondent to inspect the UPS systems and to permit delivery of the UPS systems to the 5 delivery points, which had been specified by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also sought formal written instructions for delivery of the UPS units at various delivery points in the State. These mails are said to have been sent as the petitioner was being told, orally, not to effect delivery till a char go ahead is given. 7. The petitioner again gave a representation, dated 09.04.2026, requesting permission to proceed with delivery of the UPS units. At that stage, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order of termination, dated 09.04.2026, terminating the contract on the ground that there has been a lapse of three months from the date of the purchase order and that the petitioner had failed to supply the required UPS systems, as per the specifications mentioned in the request for proposal, to the Mandal Praja Parishad Offices and the Municipal Offices. It is stated that the said order of termination was as per conditions in F.25(1), F.36 (1)(a) & (b) of the RFP issued by the 2nd respondent-Managing Director of M/s. APTSL which was the tendering authority. It also states that it was also as per the purchase order issued to the petitioner on 06.01.2026. 8. Aggrieved by this order of termination, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 9. Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent, acting for some ulterior reason, had deliberately not given the necessary instructions for inspection and delivery of 6 the UPS units despite various representations made by the petitioner. He would contend that all the units, required for delivery, had been brought to the central warehouse of the petitioner, in Vijayawada, on 12.03.2026 itself and the same was also intimated to the 3rd respondent. He would contend that despite such information being given and despite permission being sought for delivery, no intimation of any nature nor any instruction was given by the 3rd respondent. He would submit that the termination of the contract on 09.04.2026, is clearly arbitrary and done for reasons which are not germane to the contract. He would submit that the respondents while holding back the petitioner from delivering the UPS systems had held the delay to be solely due to the petitioner and had terminated the contract on such a specious ground. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire exercise of termination is arbitrary and requires to be interdicted by this Court. 11. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that neither the terms of the tender nor the purchase order required any specific permission from the 3rd respondent for the petitioner to deliver the UPS systems to the delivery points. The petitioner was fully aware of the exact location of the delivery points and was also aware of the fact that no such permission was required from the 3rd respondent. However, the petitioner did not deliver any UPS system to any delivery point throughout the State till the termination order was passed on 09.04.2026. The 3rd respondent would contend that time was of utmost importance, in the contract, inasmuch as the UPS systems were necessary for proper functioning of the computers 7 and electronic equipment, available in the Mandal Offices as well as the Municipalities. It is contended that these UPS systems were sought, on an urgent basis, because of the oncoming summer where power supply would fluctuate and result in disruption in the functioning of the offices itself. 12. The 3rd respondent has also raised a preliminary objection that the dispute in question, is a contractual dispute and a Writ Petition would not be maintainable in relation to a contractual dispute. The 3rd respondent has also contended that there is an effective alternative remedy of reference to arbitration, contained in the contract. The 3rd respondent further contends that a Writ Petition would not be maintainable once there is an effective alternative remedy. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT: 13. At the outset, this Court would have to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the 3rd respondent. It is true that the Constitutional Courts, would not normally intervene in a contractual dispute, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is now settled law, that even contractual disputes, especially when such disputes arise out of the arbitrary actions of the State, can be taken up for review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the, findings of this Court, which are contained herein below, the present Writ Petition would be maintainable as this Court finds arbitrariness Writ large in the present case. I am fortified in this view by the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Unitech Limited & Ors 8 Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (Tsiic) & Ors1, Union of India & ors Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited2. 14. The relevant provision of the RFP/Tender which is admitted binding on both sides, are F.7.1(a)&(b), F.10, F.25 & F.36 which are extracted herein below:- “F.7.: Inspection and acceptance tests 1. Inspection and tests prior to shipment of Goods and at final acceptance are as follows: a) Inspection of the goods shall be carried out to check whether the goods are in conformity with the specifications mentioned in the bid document. Following broad test procedure will generally be followed for inspection and testing of hardware and firm wares. The vendor will dispatch the goods to the ultimate consignee after internal inspection testing along with the supplier's inspection report, manufacturer's warranty certificate. The Purchaser will test the equipment after completion of the installation and commissioning at the site of the installation. (If site preparation is not included in the tender call or specification. the vendor should furnish all details of the site requirement to the Purchaser sufficiently in advance so as to get the works completed before receipt of the equipment.) b) The Inspections and tests, at the discretion of Purchaser, may be conducted on the premises of the Vendor or its subcontractor(s), at point of delivery, and / or at the good's final destination. If conducted on the premises of the Vendor or its subcontractor(s), all reasonable facilities and assistance, including access to drawings and production data, shall be furnished to the inspectors at no charge to the Purchaser.” F. 10. Delivery and Installation period: Successful Bidder shall deliver the goods/services, install and commission the same within the time period as mentioned in the Bid Data Sheet at the designated locations as communicated by the Purchaser/User Department. F.25. Delays in the supplier's performance 1 2021 16 SCC 35 2 (2011) 5 SCC 697 9 1. Delivery of the Goods and performance of the services shall be made by the Vendor in accordance with the time schedule specified by the Purchaser in the bid document. 2. If at any time during performance of the Contract, the Vendor or its subcontractor(s) should encounter conditions impending timely delivery of the goods and performance of services, the Vendor shall promptly notify the Purchaser in writing of the fact of the delay, its likely duration and its cause(s). As soon as practicable after receipt of the vendor's notice, Purchaser shall evaluate the situation and may at its discretion extend the Vendor's time for performance, with or without liquidated damages. 3. A delay by the Vendor in the performance of its delivery obligations shall render the vendor liable to the imposition of appropriate liquidated damages, unless an extension of time is agreed upon by Purchaser without liquidated damages. F.36. Termination for default 1. The Purchaser, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of Contract, by written notice of default sent to the Vendor, may terminate the Contract in whole or in part: a) if the Vendor fails to deliver any or all of the Goods/services within the time period(s) specified in the contract, or within any extension thereof granted by the Purchaser pursuant to Clause F.25 or b) if the Vendor fails to perform any other obligation(s) under the Contract or c) if the Vendor, in the judgment of the Purchaser has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in executing the Contract. 2. 2. In the event the Purchaser terminated the contract in whole or in part, Purchaser may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, goods or services similar to those undelivered, and the Vendor shall be liable to the Purchaser for any excess costs for such similar goods or services. However, the Vendor shall continue performance of the contract to the extent not terminated.” 15. The other relevant clauses would be condition no.4 of the terms and conditions of the purchase order dated 06.01.2026 which required that the supply should be made in full eight weeks from the date of purchase order at the delivery locations desired by the 3rd respondent. 10 16. As can be seen from the recital of facts contained above, there is no dispute that the petitioner had not delivered the UPS systems by 03.03.2026. Clause F.25(2) stipulates that, in the event of delay, the petitioner could seek for further extension of time and it would be open to the 3rd respondent, at its discretion, to extend such time, with or without liquidated damages. 17. The petitioner addressed a letter, dated 16.02.2026, seeking extension of time. Thereafter, the petitioner again sought time in the letter, dated 26.02.2026. The 3rd respondent replied to these representations by its letter, dated 09.03.2026. In the said reply, the 3rd respondent had stated as follows: “Further, the vendor M/s. Fervid Smart Solutions Pvt Ltd, Vijayawada, had requested will complete the supply of 7500 nos of AVO 1000, 1 KVA Line Interactive UPS Systems on or before 25-03-2026., and given consent to the Department to procure the remaining balance of 4947 nos from the L2 bidder Vide ref 5th cited. Hence, Notice is hereby issued to the vendor M/s. Fervid Smart Solutions Pvt Ltd, Vijayawada, for supply of 7512 nos of AVO 1000, 1 KVA Line Interactive UPS Systems to the Mandal Praja Parishad offices/ Municipal Offices (ULBs) for the concerned 16 Districts in the State of AP immediately & not possible to extend the time due to urgency of work. Otherwise, action will be initiated as per tender norms and P.O conditions against the vendor.” 18. A reading of these two extracts of the said letter, dated 09.03.2026, makes it clear that the 3rd respondent had granted further time for delivering of the UPS systems. There could be some debate as to whether such extension of time was till 25.03.2026 or otherwise. This Court does not propose to go into this question in view of the subsequent facts. 11 19. After the said letter, dated 09.03.2026, the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 10.03.2026, to the 3rd respondent stating that the UPS systems were reaching the central warehouse of the petitioner, in Vijayawada by 12.03.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner again sent an e-mail, dated 10.03.2026, giving the details of the vehicles in which the UPS systems had been delivered as well as photographs showing such delivery. 20 It is the case of the 3rd respondent, that after the exchange of these communications, the petitioner did not take any step to deliver the UPS systems and the same is a clear violation of the express terms of the contract. 21. However, this does not appear to be such a simple case of non delivery of UPS systems. The petitioner, in paragraph No.15 of his affidavit stated as follows:- “Paragraph No.15:- It is submitted that despite the above, and after repeated representations, including a detailed representation dated 09.04.2026 requesting permission to proceed with delivery, Respondent No. 3, instead of permitting supply, arbitrarily cancelled the Purchase Order dated 06.01.2026 and forfeited the petitioner’s bid security.” 22. The petitioner, did not give the details of the repeated representations that are mentioned in Paragraph No.15. However, in the course of the hearing of this case, on 24.04.2026, the Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place these emails before the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent objected to the same on the ground that these documents were not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition nor they have been served on the learned counsel appearing for 12 the 3rd respondent. In those circumstances, this Court had observed as follows, in the order, dated 24.04.2026, reads as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner has, today, brought to the notice of this Court, certain communications that are said to have been sent by the petitioner, by way of E-Mails, to the respondent authorities. In particular, an E-Mail, dated 13.03.2026, has been brought to the attention of this Court. In this Mail, the petitioner is said to have called upon the respondent authorities to give permission to dispatch 1 KVA UPS Systems to the delivery points. Smt. Pranathi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that, none of these Mails, have been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition nor have such Mails, been served, on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, shall put together all the E-Mail messages that the petitioner is seeking to rely upon and serve the same, on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by today i.e., 24.04.2026 evening. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents granted further time for verifying whether such messages had been received by the respondent authorities or not.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in pursuance of this order, had filed a memo, on 24.04.2026, after serving a copy on the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed, in this memo, e-mails, dated 13.03.2026 & 17.03.2026 which were sent to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 28.04.2026. In the said counter-affidavit, there is no denial of the receipt of these e-mails. The 3rd respondent has also not denied the contents of the said e-mails. 24. In the circumstances, the said emails and the contents thereof remain uncontroverted and are significant for the purposes of this case. The e- mail sent at 05.21 pm on 13.03.2026 states as follows: 13 “In strict compliance with the Department's directive dated 09-03- 2026, we have mobilized our resources and are pleased to report our complete physical readiness. The entire stock of 7,800 UPS units has successfully arrived at our Vijayawada Central Warehouse. Our engineering teams have completed the necessary unboxing, testing, and staging, and our transport fleet is fully prepared to commence the last-mile distribution to the 415 Mandal/MPDO locations across the 16 assigned districts. Given the significant capital and operational investments, we have already made to honour the Department's mandate, we most respectfully request your good office to kindly review our compliance and grant us formal clearance to proceed with the deliveries at the earliest. We are fully committed to completing the delivery, installation, and commissioning of the 7,512 units by 25-Mar-2026. We have attached our detailed representation along with photographic evidence of the arrived stock and our ongoing Quality Control operations for your kind perusal.” 25. The email dated 13.03.2026 sent at 03.05 p.m. states as follows: “During our meeting today, your good office verbally informed us of instructions from higher authorities to temporarily hold our distribution. We hold the highest respect for the Department's internal directives. However, we humbly submit that holding the dispatch at this final stage-when the material is physically on the ground, fully tested, and our labor and transport fleets are actively deployed -creates severe, unforeseen logistical and financial bottlenecks for our company. We respectfully and earnestly request your good office to review our 100% physical compliance and kindly grant us the formal written clearance to immediately commence the last-mile distribution.” 26. These emails reveal that, the petitioner was informed orally not to despatch the goods physically. The 3rd respondent, having instructed the petitioner not to despatch the UPS systems orally, subsequently sends a letter, dated 09.04.2026, terminating the contract of the petitioner for non- delivery of the UPS systems at the delivery points indicated earlier. 27. Initially there appears to have been a dispute as to whether the UPS systems could be despatched without inspection and clearance from the 3rd respondent or not. The terms of the contract, set out above would show 14 that inspection was to be done after delivery and that it was also open to the 3rd respondent to seek inspection even before delivery. That issue may not be germane to the present case. 28. In view of the aforesaid contents of the e-mails, it is clear that the 3rd respondent while orally restraining the petitioner from delivering the UPS systems has issued a written notice of termination on the ground of non- delivery of The UPS systems within the stipulated time. This is a clear case of highhanded and arbitrary action by the 3rd respondent. No reasons of any nature are given by the 3rd respondent as to why such an oral instruction was given. The 3rd respondent has also not specified the higher authorities who are said to have directed such a restriction on the delivery of the UPS systems. 29. The State, is expected to adhere to a higher level of conduct, even in contractual matters. Any derogation, from such fair conduct, would impinge upon the rights, enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution of India as any arbitrary action of the State is anathema to the right of guaranteed under Article-14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the facts, clearly speak of arbitrariness on the part of the 3rd respondent which goes to the root of the matter and requires the intervention of this Court. [ABL International Ltd & Anr Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors3 3 (2004) 3 SCC 553 15 and Hindustan Construction Company Limited Vs Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Ors4]. 30. In fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even the consent given by the petitioner, for permitting another tenderer to supply approximately 4,832 UPS systems, was obtained from the petitioner, by undue pressure, may have substance. 31. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the Order of termination, dated 09.04.2026. 32. The 3rd respondent has also stated that a contract had been awarded, for supply of the remaining UPS units, to a third party. The said placement of contract cannot be the basis for non-suiting the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, it is open to the 3rd respondent to ensure that the contract with the petitioner is complied and make suitable arrangements as far as the 3rd party is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 28.04.2026 Note:- Issue C.C by Tomorrow, B/o. BSM 4 (2026) 3 SCC 264 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.10040 of 2026 28.04.2026 Note:- Issue C.C by Tomorrow, B/o. BSM