APHC010149462026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO:315 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-40 [3552] M/s. Sreenivasa Detective Security Service ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. M. R. K. Chakravarthy Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Nagaraju Naguru, ld. GP for Endowments CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 9th April, 2026. P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2026, passed in Writ Petition No.5638 of 2026, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein, challenging the Tender Notice dated 20.02.2026 for providing manpower supply in respondent No.4 Temple, was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: In the earlier round of litigation, a tender notification was issued by the respondent Temple for the supply of manpower for a period of one year, i.e., from 01.03.2025 to 28.02.2026. The petitioner was subsequently declared HCJ & RRRJ WA_315_2026 successful in that bidding process. The official respondents, however, sought to defer the allotment of the work to the petitioner on the ground that there would be a centralized e-tendering process for the supply of manpower in regard to Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner Cadre temples. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8223 of 2025 before a learned Single Judge of this Court. By virtue of interim orders dated 04.04.2025, passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition, the petitioner was permitted to continue the contract during the prescribed period. 4. It is in that backdrop that the official respondents issued a tender notice dated 20.02.2026, inviting bids for providing manpower supply on an outsourcing basis for Boyakonda Gangamma Devasthanam/respondent No.4 herein. 5. The main argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that, having already taken a policy decision to invite bids through a centralized bidding system for all the temples, it was not open to the respondents to invite bids for respondent No.4 exclusively, especially when the declared stance of the official respondents in the earlier Writ Petition was to adopt a centralized bidding system for all the temples. 6. The stand of the official respondents, as reflected in the memo dated HCJ & RRRJ WA_315_2026 10.12.2025 issued by the Commissioner of the Endowments Department, is that the centralization of the e-tendering system for providing manpower to seven major temples in the State was still under examination and that, in the meantime, the Executive Officers of the said temples were instructed to call for new tenders for the supply of required manpower in their respective temples for a period of one year. It is stated that it was in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that bids were invited, in this case, for the supply of manpower to Boyakonda Gangamma Devasthanam, Diguvapalli Village. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. In our opinion, the stand of the official respondents to have a centralized bidding system for major temples, as reflected in the communication dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Endowments Department, does not appear to be a policy decision at all, as the said communication does not portray it to be as such. 9. It also appears from the communication dated 10.12.2025 that the issue of a centralized e-tendering system for providing manpower to seven major temples was still under examination and, therefore, the decision to call for manpower supply to respondent No.4 Temple, in those circumstances, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The right of the appellant to be considered is not taken away if the tendering process is limited to a particular temple and is not constrained. Page 4 of 4 HCJ & RRRJ WA_315_2026 10. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN