APHC010104112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5638/2026 Between: 1. M/S. SREENIVASA DETECTIVE SECURITY SERVICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, K.NAGARAJA, S/O. K.SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 13-6-600/44/157, PK LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR-517501, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVESTHANAM, DIGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DIGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVESTHANAM, DIGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 ...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 the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Tender vide Tender No.1/SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVASTHANAM/Outsourcing/2026-27 dated 20.02.2026 to provide Man power supply on outsourcing basis to work in the Respondent Temple for a period of one (01) year from 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2028 being contrary to the Proceedings L.Dis.No.D1/COE-14027(34)/10/2025 dated 20.03.2025 of the 2nd Respondent and pending the Petitioners WP No.8223 of 2025 filed to direct the Respondents to allot the work (manpower services) on outsourcing basis to the Respondent Temple as being illegal, arbitrarily, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents not to proceed further and process the Tender No. 1/SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVASTHANAM/Outsourcing/2026-27 dated 20.02.2026 and also continue the Petitioner as the outsourcing agency till contract is entered and the contract period is completed under the said Agreement 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender N0.I/SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVASTHANAM/Outsourcing/2026-27 dated 20.02.2026 floated by Respondents for providing Man-power supply on outsourcing basis to work in the Respondent Temple for a period of one (01) year from 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2028 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5638/2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Tender vide Tender No.1/SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVASTHANAM/ Outsourcing/2026-27 dated 20.02.2026 to provide Man power supply on outsourcing basis to work in the Respondent Temple for a period of one (01) year from 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2028 being contrary to the Proceedings L.Dis.No.D1/COE-14027(34)/10/2025 dated 20.03.2025 of the 2nd Respondent and pending the Petitioners W.P.No.8223 of 2025 filed to direct the Respondents to allot the work (manpower services) on outsourcing basis to the Respondent Temple as being illegal, arbitrarily, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents not to proceed further and process the Tender No. 1/SRI BOYAKONDA GANGAMMA DEVASTHANAM/Outsourcing/2026-27 dated 20.02.2026 and also continue the Petitioner as the outsourcing agency till contract is entered and the contract period is completed under the said Agreement and to pass such other order or orders.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 issued a tender notification dated 20.02.2026 calling for tenders for providing man power supply on outsourcing 4 basis to work in the various sections of the respondent temple for a period of one year i.e., from 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2027. Earlier during the year 2025 the respondent No.4 also issued a tender notification for supply of manpower for a period of one year i.e., from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2026. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner became successful bidder for that period. After declaration of the petitioner as a successful bidder, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they did not allow the petitioner to carry out supply of man power from 01.03.2025 on the guise that the higher authorities are intended to call for tenders by way of centralized system clubbing all the manpower required temples instead of temple wise system. The said action of the respondents was challenged before this Court by way of W.P.No.8223 of 2025, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 04.04.2025 directing the respondents to allot the work for man-power supply on outsourcing basis to work in various sections in the 4th respondent temple for a period of one year from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2026 pursuant to the E- procurement tender dated 03.02.2025 un-influenced by the proceedings dated 20.03.2025 of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner was continued services from April, 2025 to till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is suffering financial loss for the month of March, 2025 5 even though he became successful bidder. He further submits that as stated by the respondents that by the earlier impugned proceedings the respondents are taking steps for conducting auction in centralized system, but the same was not valid. Again respondent No.4 issued tender by way of temple wise system, if that is so the petitioner should be continued for further period for which he was prevented without entrusting the tender work. Therefore, the impugned proceedings inviting tenders for the period from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2026 is contrary to the terms of earlier selection of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the period of tender for which the petitioner was selected would be completed by 28.02.2026. The present tender notice was issued only for a period of next year i.e., 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2027. Once the tender period is completed as per its terms the petitioner cannot sought for any relief more than the period for which the tender was issued. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to participate even in the present tender along with the others, but he cannot sought for any relief against the present tender notification. 6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. It is settled law that no successful bidder would vest with any vested rights whatsoever on the ground he 6 became successful bidder or he was selected as per tender notice. It is not out of the place that it is the domain of the tendering authority to take any decision as per necessity or to meet emergency or as per public interest. Even as per the terms of the tender, the tendering authority may entitled either to cancel or withdraw or postpone the implementation of the tender conditions, if any situation or any emergency warrants. It is observed that in the given case due to the decision of the higher authorities, the tender issued by respondent No.4 was intended to postpone for issuance of further tender process by way of centralized system. Therefore by mentioning such condition for not granting any agreement to the petitioner is neither arbitrary nor malafide and it is purely an administrative decision. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner even though he became successful bidder and he spent his own finances keeping all the personnel at his disposal for the entire 12 months period, but cutting short of one month by issuing fresh tender will deprive the petitioner financially and the work force who were engaged by him may loose employment for one month period. The said contention of the petitioner may not be valid in view of the settled principle of law as mentioned above. However to avoid further delay and other adverse proceedings this Court inclined to pass an order. 7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to proceed with the tender process 7 pursuant to the tender notice dated 20.02.2026 and finalize the tender by extending time period of the tender for one more month i.e., instated of 01.03.2026, grant from 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027. After such finalization, the tendering authority may award contract to the selected bidder. However, if the respondents intended to issue fresh tender after completion of the month of March, 2026 respondent Nos.4 and 5 are at liberty to issue fresh tender notification, by recalling the present tender notification dated 20.02.2026, for a period of one year starts from 01.04.2026 or for a restricted period of 11 months as per the decision of the tendering authority. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 27.02.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP 8 83 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5638/2026 27.02.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP