IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.832 OF 2026 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3584] M/s.Corpus Enterprises Private Limited ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Sri C.Kranthi Kumar representing Sri Nagasein Kasim Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for State CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 10th July 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The present appeal is preferred assailing order dated 30.06.2026 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.15339 of 2026, whereby learned Single Judge refused to grant interim order as prayed for, however, directed that the award of contract pursuant to impugned RSP shall be subject to final result in the writ petition. 2. Brief facts are as follows: (a) 2nd respondent issued request for proposal (RFP) for selection of an agency for supply, installation, testing and 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 commissioning of Middleware, DRM and allied Software and Hardware for IPTV, OTT, G2C and VAS Service Delivery, vide its notification dated 21.05.2026. The timelines specified under the said RFP are as follows. 28.05.2026 ⮚ Physical pre-bid meeting to be held at 11.00 a.m. ⮚ Any queries or clarifications to be received on or before 05.00 p.m. 04.06.2026 ⮚ Demand draft for ₹11,800/- to be submitted along with the bid proposal towards bid processing fee. ⮚ Bank Guarantee for ₹26,25,000/- shall be submitted along with bid proposal towards bid security/EMD, which is refundable. ⮚ The bid proposals to be submitted before 04.00 p.m. ⮚ The bids shall be opened for the purpose of evaluating pre-qualification at 05.00 p.m. --- ⮚ After evaluation of pre-qualification criteria, the bids which stand qualified shall be proceeded for further evaluation of commercial proposals.p (b) The appellant participated in the pre-bid meeting, however, it did not submit bid proposal before the deadline, i.e., 04.00 p.m. on 04.06.2026. Eventually, appellant filed writ petition before this Court on 08.06.2026 challenging the RFP dated 21.05.2026 and the Corrigendum dated 03.06.2026. The challenge laid was 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 essentially to clause 9.1 r/w Annexure – S, insofar as it mandates a self-declaration that no show-cause notice was ever issued to the bidder/proposer as on the date of submission of the bid and further, the RFP was also challenged on the ground that the impugned RFP also included within its scope the work of setup and operation and maintenance of smart App, which work the appellant stated to be already executing in pursuance to another subsisting agreement to be illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(j) of Constitution of India. (c) The appellant claims that the 2nd respondent has awarded the contract in relation to providing Middleware and DRM and other allied Software and Hardware for IPTV, OTT, G2C and VAS Service Delivery under Agreement dated 20.07.2016, which was for a period of 3 years and extendable for another 2 years on same terms and conditions. (d) Subsequently, the period of contract came to be extended till 31.12.2022 by way of supplementary agreement dated 16.04.2021. Yet again, the appellant claims that the contract period has been further extended by one more year, vide Letter dated 21.03.2023, stated to have been issued by the Managing Director of 2nd respondent. Besides that, by way of purchase order issued vide Lr.No.APSFL/Smartappsetup,O&M/TO, dated 03.07.2023, 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 the 2nd respondent further entrusted the work of providing Smart app setup and operation and maintenance, which includes hardware and software components. In terms of said purchase order, the supply of Android Smart TVs (Smart TV & Mobile) were required to be completed within 8 weeks thereof and the software and other components as per the timelines specified in the proposal. (e) Once the hardware is installed, the operation and maintenance of Smart app was required to be carried out by the appellant for 3 years thereafter, and extendable for a further period of one year subject to satisfactory performance. In that view of the matter, appellant claims that the contract with regard to operation and maintenance of Smart app subsists. It is also claimed that though the contract period expired by 31.12.2023 with respect to the services relating to Middleware, DRM and allied services, even there being no contractual obligation, the appellant stated to be continuing to provide the services. The appellant, however, has been engaging with the 2nd respondent expressing its inability to renew the licences with regard to aforesaid services in the absence of a concluded contract. (f) Be that as it may, it is stated that with regard to the sharing of revenue on account of Value Added Services, as 2nd respondent 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 did not honour to pay certain amounts, a dispute has been raised in that regard and the matter now is pending before arbitrator for adjudication. Since the 2nd respondent has not been evincing any interest to enter into fresh agreement, the appellant stated to have discontinued the services falling under the initial agreement dated 22.07.2016, for which the 2nd respondent had issued show-cause notices dated 14.05.2026 and 16.05.2026, for which a suitable reply was given vide letters dated 15.05.2026 and 17.05.2026. That being so, the 2nd respondent now stated to have come up with the impugned RFP stipulating condition number 9.1, which aims to exclude the appellant from participating in the tendering process, besides also including within the scope of RFP, the contract that is being executed by appellant under Purchase Order dated 03.07.2023. (g) In that background, the writ petition came to be preferred along with I.A. No.1 of 2026 seeking stay of operation of clause 9.1 r/w Annexure - S appended to RFP and further stay of proceedings in the tendering process, besides directing respondents to permit the appellant to participate in the tendering process and also further direction to respondents not to finalise the contract till then. (h) Learned Single Judge, after considering the extensive submissions made on behalf of both the appellant as well as 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 contesting 2nd respondent, having taken note of the fact that despite the appellant being given opportunity to participate in the tender by submitting the EMD as envisaged in the tender document, which appellant failed to do so within timeline so fixed, besides that the writ petition came to be filed after participating in the pre-bid meeting, rejected the interim prayer as sought for. (i) Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri C.Kranthi Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Nagasein Kasim, learned counsel for appellant on record and Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for State appearing for respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made following submissions: (a) Insertion of clause 9.1 r/w Annexure - S in RFP was solely aimed to exclude the appellant from participating in the tendering process, which is clearly a mala fide act. (b) When there is a subsisting contract with regard to Smart app setup, operation and maintenance, without terminating the said contract, the 2nd respondent ought not to have included the very same work within the scope of impugned RFP, which is clearly arbitrary and illegal, besides causing undue burden on State exchequer. 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 (c) In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for appellant therefore contends that the appellant had made out a clear prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in its favour for staying the tendering process for grant of interim orders. (d) To buttress the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited1. 5. (a) On the other hand, Smt.S.Pranathi appearing for 2nd respondent, while supporting the impugned order of learned Single Judge contends that the contract to provide Middleware and DRM software for IPTV, OTT, G2C and VAS Delivery, which was awarded under Agreement dated 22.07.2016 and later extended from time to time, even according to the appellant, it is no longer in force and further that appellant since has raised dispute regarding sharing of revenue on account of Value Added Services, the subject matter is pending before arbitrator. Besides that, on account of interruption of services by the appellant, the 2nd respondent has also issued show-cause notices dated 14.05.2026 and 16.05.2026, for which the appellant had replied to and the matter thus ceased at that level. 1 (1991) 1 SCC 492 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 (b) Further, insofar as the other contract of supply of Smart app setup and operation and maintenance, the appellant failed to complete the installation of hardware within the specified timelines of 8 weeks and though there is a clause for extension of time frame under the said contract, the appellant was not granted any extension as such, even the said contract also does not survive anymore. To the extent of the hardware which has already been installed, the contract envisages operation and maintenance to be undertaken by the appellant for a period of 3 years, which is to end by 03.09.2026. The 2nd respondent, therefore, cannot wait till completion of aforesaid period for selecting a new agency and the nature of services being very much essential to public at large, the process of RFP has been undertaken well in advance enabling the new entity to develop the app and come up with appropriate protocols for rolling out the same system. (c) In this background, according to learned counsel, the 2nd respondent had come up with RFP for the proposed work specifying appropriate terms and conditions in the process of selecting the bidder. She further contended that though appellant was given opportunity to submit bank guarantee in furtherance to the requirement of providing EMD, deliberately the appellant chose not to do so rather submitted a demand draft, despite knowing that 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 MSEs registered with Udayam have been exempted from furnishing the same, therefore, rightly the learned Single Judge had taken note of the same in refusing the interim order. (d) Lastly, it is submitted that as the bidding process has already crossed evaluation of pre-qualification, even commercial bids have been opened on 06.07.2026, therefore, would urge to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have gone through the material on record and given anxious consideration to the contentions raised. 7. RFP issued for selection of agency for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Middleware, DRM and allied Software & Hardware for IPTV, OTT, G2C and VAS Service Delivery. Sl.No.9 of Clause 9.1, which is under challenge in the writ petition reads as under: S.No. Eligibility criteria Documents required 9 Non-Termination and Compliance Certificate The bidder/consortium shall submit self- declaration in the company letter head stating that their services are not terminated/ no show cause notices were issued/ not represented as defaulter in any form by any Govt. organizations/ Private organizations as on date of bid submission as per Annexure-S in the RFP. Annexure – S is the format of self-declaration which is in consonance with aforesaid clause. 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 8. The appellant contends that aforesaid clause, which specifies eligibility criteria, intends to exclude it from participating in the bidding process, for the reason it had already been issued show cause notices dated 14.05.2016 and 16.05.2016 in relation to previous contract on the same subject. At this stage, the appellant had attributed mala fides to the respondents. However, the appellant has not specifically made any of individual officers as parties to the writ petition and pleaded specific instances attributing mala fides on them. 9. At any rate, at this interlocutory stage, it is not discernible to examine the validity of a condition qua the allegations of mala fides. Fact remains that there are two notices staring at appellant, which make it ineligible to participate in the bidding process. That apart, there are two more aspects which need to be referred to, which learned Single Judge has dealt with. 10. The Writ Court had given direction on 11.06.2026 allowing the appellant to submit EMD, which was required to be in the form of Bank Guarantee in terms of the eligibility criteria, however, the appellant merely furnished Demand Draft and not Bank Guarantee. When the tender conditions envisage EMD to be furnished by way of Bank Guarantee, the appellant, being well aware of such prescription and that too having participated in pre-bid meeting on 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 28.05.2026, was expected to be ready with Bank Guarantee, therefore, there cannot be any excuse that it was allowed to furnish the same with a little or no time at all. 11. That apart, learned Single Judge has also taken note of the circumstance that the appellant, having participated in pre-bid meeting on 28.05.2026, only chose to file a writ petition later as an afterthought. The appellant knew of clause 9.1 of RMP at the very first instance itself, therefore, nothing prevented it from filing a writ petition at the earliest point in time. The appellant, at one breath, cannot seek to participate in the bidding process and on the other breath, challenge the eligibility criteria per se. Therefore, the approach and reasoning of learned Single Judge on aforesaid two aspects cannot be found fault with. 12. The appellant claims to have had one contract under Agreement dated 22.07.2016 for the purpose of providing Middleware and DRM Software for IPTV, OTT Service & VAS Delivery, extended from time to time till 31.12.2023 and yet another contract for supply of Smart app setup and operation and maintenance under the purchase order dated 03.07.2023 and to be in force as of now. Insofar as first contract is concerned, as per the supplement agreement, the contract was in force till 31.12.2022 and later, by way of letter dated 21.03.2023, it has been extended 12 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 till 31.12.2023, and there are disputes between the parties with regard to certain of the aspects such as sharing of revenue on account of the value added services etc., which is pending before arbitrator. Besides request for extension/ renewal of license emanating under the contract is subject matter of show-cause notices dated 14.05.2026 and 16.05.2026. Even as per the stand of the appellant, there is no further extension of contract. 13. Insofar as the second contract emanating from purchase order dated 03.07.2023, it has two components, one supply of hardware and other software, besides operation and maintenance. The claim of appellant is that hardware component has already been supplied and presently operation and maintenance is being undertaken, which is subsisting. Whereas the stand of 2nd respondent is that there was delay in installation of hardware and no extension of time was ever granted and even otherwise the operation and maintenance for a period of 3 years in terms of said purchase order is going to end by 03.09.2026. The 2nd respondent tries to justify inclusion of this part of component within the scope of RFP as the new agency which would eventually be awarded the contract requires some time to develop app and roll out the same, therefore, technically there would not be any overlapping of the scope of work. 13 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 14. We are of the view that all these issues are required to be gone into and examined by learned Single Judge during the disposal of the writ petition upon completion of pleadings and at this stage, it would be improper to express any opinion. However, prima facie, we are of the view that there is some justification in favour of 2nd respondent in that regard. 15. The other issues raised, that is, causing loss to State Exchequer on account of having two agencies parallelly for executing same work, in view of our observation above, prima facie, we are also not so impressed considering that the operation and maintenance would end by 03.09.2026. Though learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised an issue that appellant being MSME, is exempted from furnishing EMD, knowing that the same was not disclosed in the pleadings, which now has been denied by the counsel for appellant on the count that appellant is not Micro and Small Enterprise, whereas a medium enterprise otherwise required to furnish the EMD, we are of the opinion that these issues require examination based on the record and proper pleadings, therefore, we cannot express any opinion on merits at this stage and leave it to parties to agitate during the hearing of the main writ petition. 14 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.832 of 2026 16. Though learned counsel for appellant has laid much emphasis on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raunaq International Ltd.1, we feel that the facts and circumstances emanating from this case do not fit into the ratio laid down therein. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss