Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.
Omics International Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The state of ap, rep. By its principal secretary, youth services and sports department – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 14209 of 2025
Decided on : 13-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VARUN BYREDDY
For the Respondent: N ASHWANI KUMAR, N RAVI PRASAD
An extension of franchise rights requires formal agreement and communication; absence of such makes subsequent actions by the respondents lawful.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition for enforcement of an alleged extension of franchise rights for further duration in absence of a formal agreement. The petitioners claimed the respondents violated a prior resolution extending franchise rights for 18 years. The court found that the respondents' actions in initiating a fresh tender process were not arbitrary as the extension lacked formal acceptance and communication. (Paras 6, 14, 16)
(B) No formal contract was established through internal communications, and the actions taken by the respondents were deemed acceptable within legal boundaries. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to enforce extended franchise rights for an 18-year period based on prior communication and resolutions. They claimed the 2nd respondent acted unlawfully by calling for new bids despite their established agreement.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that no legally binding contract existed and the respondents were within their rights to invite new EOIs.
Issues: Whether the alleged franchise extension constituted a binding agreement and if the petitioners were entitled to relief under judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a formal agreement and clear acceptance nullified the enforcement of franchise rights, rendering the respondents' invitation for new bids lawful.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of prior franchise rights extension. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. contestation of the fresh eoi process by petitioners. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. arguments against maintainability of writ petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. court’s reasoning on the absence of binding offer. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
2. The issue that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the 2nd respondent is justified in issuing an advertisement inviting Expressions of Interest (EOI) from interested entities for acquiring the right to own and operate a franchise cricket team in the Andhra Premier League (APL), conducted by the 2nd respondent, despite a prior decision taken by the 3rd respondent to extend the petitioners’ franchise rights for a further period of 18 years.
3. The APL, founded on the lines of the Indian Premier League (IPL), was established to organise Twenty-Twenty cricket matches within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 2nd respondent constituted the APL Governing Council in 2022 and decided to commence the league’s matches in April 2022. The petitioners were granted franchise rights for six teams by both the 2nd and 3rd respondents in 2022.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that, in a meeting held on 20.03.2024, the 3rd respondent resolved to extend the franchise period in their favour for an additional 18 years, with a corresponding enhancement of the existing franchise fee/base price. This resolution was allegedly approved by the General Body of the 2nd respondent in its meeting dated 04.05.2024. The petitioners, by email dated 16.07.2024, expressed their gratitude to the 3rd respondent for approving the extension, and, at request of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent, by email dated 17.07.2024, forwarded the minutes of the Governing Council and Annual General Body Meetings evidencing such approval.
5. However, through the impugned proceedings, the 2nd respondent has now initiated a fresh process by calling for EOIs from companies, joint ventures, or other entities interested in acquiring franchise rights in the APL, with the last date for submission of applications notified as 07.06.2025. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. The matter was listed before the Vacation Bench on 06.06.2025, where the following interim order was passed.
“Heard the submissions of Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
The matter requires consideration.
List on 19.06.2025 for filing counters of the respondents.
Till such time, it is observed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to receive and open the bids, however shall not finalize the bids.”
6. Subsequently, the respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits and vacate stay petitions. Thus, the matter is now taken up for final disposal. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioners, submits that the 2nd respondent, having already resolved to extend the petitioners’ franchise rights for 18 years, cannot now unilaterally initiate a fresh tender process, especially in the absence of any formal revocation of the earlier decision. He contends that such conduct is arbitrary and violative of settled legal principles. Referring to the original agreement, learned counsel points out that the 1st petitioner had an option to extend the franchise period for 9 years with a 15% fee escalation every three years, which the petitioners have duly acted upon through annual payments and furth
