Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11005
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J
O MICS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 14209/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: VARUN BYREDDY
For the Respondents: GP FOR SPORTS, N ASHWANI KUMAR, N RAVI PRASAD
A binding contract requires a formal agreement, and internal resolutions without formal communication do not constitute enforceable offers under contract law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Petitioners challenge the issuance of advertisement for Expressions of Interest for franchise rights despite an earlier decision to extend franchise period by 18 years; Claim of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice principles. (Para 2)
(B) Contract Law - Offer and Acceptance - The absence of a formal agreement post-resolution of franchise extension raises questions on enforceability; mere internal discussions cannot form the basis of a binding contract. (Paras 14 and 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially granted franchise rights for six teams in the Andhra Premier League and claimed an extension based on a resolution by the Governing Council. However, the 2nd respondent initiated a fresh EOI process, leading to legal challenge.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the actions of the 2nd respondent did not constitute arbitrary conduct under Article 226, as no binding contract existed regarding extension of franchise rights.
Issues: The primary question was the legality of issuing an invitation for EOIs after a purported franchise extension decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that internal discussions were insufficient to create a binding contract and rejected the claim of arbitrariness in the respondent's actions under Article 226.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment and initial franchise rights in the apl (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on binding contract through email and resolutions (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. maintainability of the writ petition under article 226 (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's analysis of contracts and internal communications (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's decision on dismissal of the writ petition (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. final order issued by the court (Para 17) |
ORDER:-
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,
