Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Omics International Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Ap on 30 June, 2025
APHC010281392025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14209/2025
Between:
1. OMICS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, (FRANCHISE OWNER - VIZAG
WARRIORS) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D. NO. 1-90/1
PLOT NO. 20 AND 21, KAVURI HILLS, HI-TECH CITY, HYDERABAD -
500 081 REP. BY P. ROHAN KUMAR
2. COASTAL RIDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,, (FRANCHISE OWNER -
COASTAL RIDERS) PENT HOUSE, 601, VENKATADRI NILAYAM,
MASID BACKSIDE ROAD, M M ROAD JUNCTION, ONGOLE,
PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, 523002 REP. BY M. VENKATADRI
REDDY
3. M/S KVR SPORTS ACADEMY,, (FRANCHISE OWNER -
UTTARANDHRA LIONS) HAVING OFFICE AT D.NO.50-121-27, SRI
DHANALAKSHMI NILAYAM, BS LAYOUT, SEETHAMMADHARA,
VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 013 REP. BY K. VENKATA REDDY
4. ANDHRA HOSPITALS (VIJAYAWADA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
(FRANCHISE OWNER - BEZAWADA TIGERS) HAVING
REGISTRERED OFFICE AT D. NO. 29-14-61, CVR COMPLEX,
PRAKASAM ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY G.
SATEESH CHANDRA MOHAN
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, YOUTH
SERVICES AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ACA, DR. Y.S.R. ACA-VDCA
CRICKET STADIUM, POTHINA MALLAYYA PALEM,
2
VISAKHAPATNAM-530041 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, ANDHRA PREMIER LEAGUE, DR.
Y.S.R. ACA-VDCA CRICKET STADIUM, POTHINA MALLAYYA PALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM-530041 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
4. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, 4TH FLOOR,
CRICKET CENTRE WANKHEDE STADIUM, D ROAD, CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI -400020, INDIA. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...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, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of 2nd and 3rd
Respondents in issuing an advertisement and an invitation dated 02.06.2025
inviting expression of interests from interested entities for the purpose of
acquiring the right to own and operate a franchise for a cricket team in the
Andhra Premier League conducted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents despite
talking a decision to extend the franchise by 18 years as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principals of natural justice and violative pf articles 14 and 19 of the
Indian Constitution and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 the advertisement and an invitation dated 02.06.2025 inviting
expression of interests from interested entities for the purpose of acquiring the
right to own and operate a franchise for a cricket team in the Andhra Premier
League ("APL") conducted by the 2nd and 3rdRespondents; and pass s
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
may pleased to VACATE the interim order dated 06.06.2025 passed in W.P.
No. 14209 of 2025, and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SPORTS
2. N ASHWANI KUMAR
3
3. N RAVI PRASAD
The Court made the following:
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
4
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
5
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 further argues that substantial payments
were also made post confirmation of 18 year tenure.
7. It is contended that though no formal agreement was
subsequently executed, the learned counsel argues that the decisions of the
Governing Council and General Body, coupled with their communication to the
petitioners through email dated 17.07.2024, constitute a valid offer and
acceptance. As a public body, the 2nd respondent is bound by the doctrine of
promissory estoppel and cannot go back on its promise. In support of this
contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rickmers Verwaltung GMBH Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,1 wherein it
was held as follows:
“13. In this connection the cardinal principle to remember is that
it is the duty of the court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive
at a conclusion whether there was any meeting of mind between the
parties, which could create a binding contract between them but the court
is not empowered to create a contract for the parties by going outside the
clear language used in the correspondence, except insofar as there are
some appropriate implications of law to be drawn. Unless from the
correspondence, it can unequivocally and clearly emerge that the parties1
(1999) 1 SCC 1
6were ad idem to the terms, it cannot be said that an agreement had come
into existence between them through correspondence. The court is
required to review what the parties wrote and how they acted and from
that material to infer whether the intention as expressed in the
correspondence was to bring into existence a mutually binding contract.
The intention of the parties is to be gathered only from the expressions
used in the correspondence and the meaning it conveys and in case it
shows that there had been meeting of mind between the parties and they
had actually reached an agreement upon all material terms, then and
then alone can it be said that a binding contract was capable of being
spelt out from the correspondence.”
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the
intention of the 2nd respondent can be discerned from its resolution
dated 04.05.2024. Although no formal written agreement has been executed
between the parties, the extension of the franchise rights was offered by the
2nd respondent and duly accepted by the petitioners. It is argued that a valid
offer, coupled with consideration and acceptance, constitutes a binding
contract. In support of this submission, learned counsel further relies on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Trimex International FZE Ltd., Dubai,
Vs. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., India 2 to contend that the 2nd respondent,
having resolved to grant a further extension of the franchise for 18 years,
cannot now go back from its commitment by issuing a fresh notification calling
for EOIs. In Trimex International FZE Ltd., Vs Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.,
India, it is observed as follows:
“49. In the light of the details which have been extracted in the
earlier paragraphs, I am unable to accept the stand of the respondent. It
is clear that if the intention of the parties was to arbitrate any dispute
which arose in relation to the offer of 15-10-2007 and the acceptance of2
(2010) 3 SCC 1
716-10-2007, the dispute is to be settled through arbitration. Once the
contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal
contract has to be prepared and initialled by the parties would not affect
either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation
thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initialled.
——
53. In the present case, where the commercial offer carries no
clause making the conclusion of the contract incumbent upon the
purchase order, it is clear that the basic and essential terms have been
accepted by the respondent, without any option but to treat the same as a
concluded contract.”
9. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, learned
Senior Counsel submits that since the 2nd respondent is performing public
functions and discharging public duties, any arbitrary action on its part would
be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He
contends that the present dispute, involving the interpretation of resolutions
and email communications between the parties, does not bar the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Adinarayana Rao
appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the
2nd respondent, submits that the original contract was only for a period of one
or three years, as per the terms of the agreement, and that no clause
providing for an extension is provided. He further referring to the resolution
dated 04.05.2024 contends that the alleged extension contemplates execution
of a formal agreement, as the resolution specifies certain rates for certain
durations.
8
11. He thus argues that no concluded contract has come into
existence, and therefore, reliance on the said resolution by the petitioners is
misplaced. Learned counsel argues that interpretation of the resolution and
related communications would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed
questions of fact, which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. He submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved, the
proper remedy lies before the Civil Court having appropriate jurisdiction. The
learned counsel further points out that the agreements relied upon by the
petitioners contain an arbitration clause, and hence, the present writ petition is
not maintainable.
12. Considered the rival submissions.
13. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the 3rd respondent
dated 20.03.2024 discloses that the said meeting was convened to deliberate
on the future course of action of the 2nd respondent (ACA) about Revenue
Sharing, Auction Structure, Franchise Fee for the third year, Season 3 dates
and Tentative Budget, and the Women’s T20 proposal etc., incidentally it
appears to have come up for discussion during the said meeting, that a
proposal was put forth suggesting the extension of ownership rights for
existing franchise owners for 18 years, with corresponding incremental
increases in the base price during the said period. The resolution passed at
the 71st AGM reads as follows:
“It is unanimously resolved to accept and adopt the report of the
Governing Council”
9
14. It is not clear from the AGM minutes if the proposal for extension
of the franchise was separately put up for ratification. An omnibus acceptance
of the report of the Governing Council cannot be construed as a valid offer in
terms of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and an email of the petitioners
expressing gratitude cannot be termed as an “acceptance” in terms of the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Although the said reports of the
meeting were not initially communicated to the petitioners, it is evident that the
1st petitioner addressed an email dated 16.07.2024 to the 2nd respondent,
expressing gratitude for the extension of the franchise for a further period of
18 years and requesting copies of the meetings to be furnished. Upon the
request of the 1st petitioner, the 2nd respondent forwarded the relevant AGM
documents by email dated 17.07.2024. After 17.07.2024, there has been no
further communication between the parties in connection with the extension of
the franchisee.
15. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the
relief sought by the petitioners is in pursuance of the resolution of the
Governing Council. The relief sought involves a detailed examination of the
documents, recording of the evidence and recording a finding of facts to the
effect whether there was any element of ‘offer’, ‘consideration’ by the
respondents and the ‘acceptance’ in the subject transaction. They contends
that the appropriate remedy would be before the Civil Court. It is further
argued that there was no advance payment of 2025-26 was made if the
18 years contract was really granted is in force. The resolution dated
10
20.03.2024 is only internal minutes of the discussion which has no
enforceability under law. In the absence of a formal signed document granting
extension, the respondents are at liberty to issue/call for fresh EOI’s.
16. An internal discussion of the 2nd respondent between its members
about business expediency in extending the franchise for 18 years at a certain
rate cannot be viewed as an offer, in terms of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in
the absence of formal communication to the petitioners revealing the intention
of the 2nd respondent to extend. In light of the same, the actions of the
2nd respondent in issuing the advertisement and invitation dated 02.06.2025,
calling for EOI’s cannot be termed as arbitrary and irrational, warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to
the same, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought in the writ petition.
17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:30.06.2025
ANI
11
143
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION No.14209 of 2025
Date:30.06.2025
ANI