APHC010098322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 5400 Between: 1. M/S. OFFHOME HOTELS AND RESORTS (MYPADU) PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGER MADINENI SAI SIDDARDHA, S/o. M. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIG KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY FLOOR, NEAR CGO COMPLEX, INDUSTRIES ESTATE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROJECTS, ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, O/O 55 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CGO COMPLEX, NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.SUDEEPTHI POTLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TOURISM 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 5400 of 2026 M/S. OFFHOME HOTELS AND RESORTS (MYPADU) PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGER MADINENI SAI SIDDARDHA, S/o. M. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIG-1, 5TH PHASE, HPHB COLONY, Y, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522238. ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, O/O 55 FLOOR, NEAR CGO COMPLEX, INDUSTRIES ESTATE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520007. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROJECTS, ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, O/O 55 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CGO COMPLEX, INDUSTRIES ESTATE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520007. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.SUDEEPTHI POTLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR TOURISM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA M/S. OFFHOME HOTELS AND RESORTS (MYPADU) PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGER MADINENI SAI SIDDARDHA, S/o. M. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS, HAVING ITS 1, 5TH PHASE, HPHB COLONY, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, A.P. SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, O/O 55-17-2, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CGO COMPLEX, INDUSTRIES ESTATE, AUTO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROJECTS, ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, O/O 55-17-2, INDUSTRIES ESTATE, AUTO ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing Notice dated 20.08.2025 terminating the Operation & Maintenance Agreement dated 16.03.2024, entered with the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the contractual terms and principles of natural justice and to set aside the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company made submissions referring to the averments made in the writ petition, more particularly the Service Agreement of Operation & Maintenance of A.P.T.D.C., Beach Resort at Mypadu dated 16.03.2024. She submits that pursuant to the said agreement, the possession of the Resort was handed over to the petitioner, that huge amounts were invested for renovating the premises. She submits that the petitioner is regularly paying the revenue share to the respondent- Corporation and in fact, prior to entering into agreement, the petitioner paid Rs.36,00,000/- exclusive of G.S.T., towards performance security. She further submits that though the agreement is for a period of 15 years, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued Termination Notice on the premise that the said agreement for Operation & Maintenance of the Beach Resort to the petitioner, was irregular and not as per the Government norms. She contends that before issuance of the termination notice, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and therefore, the action on the part of the 2nd respondent tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice, apart from the contractual terms. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, in fact, 3 approached the 2nd and 3rd respondents on number of occasions, made several representations including the one dated 23.01.2026 (Ex.P2). But, however, the same did not yield any positive response. She submits that as the authorities concerned are trying to dispossess the petitioner from Beach Resort, having left with no other alternative, is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks the reliefs as prayed for. 3. On the other hand, Smt.Swaroopa Reddy, learned special counsel for the Corporation made submissions with reference to the instructions dated 24.02.2026 received by her from General Manager ( APTDC), Vijayawada. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Panchanama Report, dated 19.02.2026, she submits that the possession of Beach Resort in question, after conducting a panchanama, was taken over by the officials of the Tourism Development Corporation. She also referred to inventory of items and the photographs enclosed to the said instructions. Referring to the Clauses in the agreement, the learned counsel submits that as per Clause No.12.3, she submits that either party may terminate the agreement with a prior notice of six months and invoking the said Clause, the impugned notice was issued on 20.08.2025. In view of the same, she submits that the contention that the action of the respondent authorities is violative of principles of natural justice is not tenable. Further, that Clause 15 provides for ‘Dispute Resolution’, and Clause 15.2 contemplates ‘Arbitration’. She submits that in the light of the contractual terms, the petitioner has an effective remedy and therefore, the 4 writ petition is not maintainable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the suit. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, as noted earlier, the petitioner entered into maintenance service agreement on 16.03.2024, Clause No.12 of the said Agreement deals with “Termination” and the relevant Clause reads as follows: 12.1 This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon expiry of the Service Period 12.2 Neither party may not terminate this Agreement except for the reasons specified herein. 12.3 Either party may terminate this Agreement with a prior written notice of 6 (six) months. 5. Clause No.15 of the Agreement which deals with Dispute Resolution and the relevant sub-clauses reads as follows: 15.1 Amicable Resolution 15.1.1 Save where expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement, any dispute, difference or controversy of whatever nature howsoever arising under, out of or in relation to this Agreement between the Parties and so notified in writing by either Party to the other (the “Dispute”) in the first instance shall be attempted to be resolved amicably by the Authority’s officials and failing resolution of the same in accordance with the procedure set forth in sub-article 15.1.2 below. 15.1.2 Either Party may require the Dispute to be referred to the MD, APTDC by the Operator, for the time being for amicable settlement. Upon such reference, the two shall meet at the earliest mutual convenience and in any event within 15 days of such reference to discuss and attempt to amicably resolve the Dispute. If the Dispute is not amicably settled within 15 (fifteen) days of such meeting 5 between the two, either Party may refer the Dispute to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Article 15.2 below. 15.2 Arbitration. 15.2.1 Arbitrators Any dispute which is not resolved amicably as provided in Article 15.1 shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration shall be by a sole arbitrator mutually appointed by both the parties. 6. In the present case, admittedly, a notice of termination dated 20.08.2025 was issued well in advance. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon this Court that the petitioner was making representations to the authorities concerned requesting them to withdraw / not to take any action pursuant to the said notice, there is no material to that effect, except the letter dated 23.01.2026. Nothing prevented the petitioner from invoking the contractual terms which contemplates amicable resolution and arbitration, if the dispute is not resolved amicably. 7. Therefore, this Court is also not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no efficacious remedy or that the dispute regarding ‘termination of the agreement’ does not fall within the meaning of ‘dispute’ that can be resolved by the redressal mechanism provided under the agreement. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner can question the termination of the agreement by raising a dispute and quantify the loss if any. 6 Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, without going into merits and the same is dismissed without costs. 9. However, as it appears that the 2nd respondent has not taken any decision on the representation, the rejection of the writ petition would not preclude the 2nd respondent from considering the representation dated 23.01.2026 made by the petitioner, and to pass orders thereon after giving an opportunity of hearing, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status quo with regard to the possession of the subject matter property as on date shall be maintained. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 24.02.2026 BLV 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 5400 of 2026 Date: 24.02.2026 BLV