Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Praja Chaitanya Man Power ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
APHC010120722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 6379/2026
Between:
1. M/S. PRAJA CHAITANYA MAN POWER CONSULTANCY
(PCMPC),, FLAT NO. 110, SRI MOHAN RESIDENCY,
YERAMUKKAPALLI, ITI CIRCLE, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT,
REP., BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER GADIKOTA CHINNA
REDDY, S/O. LATE GADIKOTA SIDDA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238
2. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE
TECHNOLOGIES, ANDHRA PRADESH, ONGOLE CAMPUS,
ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT REP., BY ITS
REGISTRAR.523225
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HIT, ONGOLE, RAJIV
GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES
ONGOLE CAMPUS, SANTHANOOTHALAPADU, ONGOLE,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.523225
2
...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 an appropriate Writ,
Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the Tender Notice, dated 29.01.2026 issued
by the respondent No.3 inviting tenders through the e-Procurement
Portal for supply of Manpower on Outsourcing basis, during the
subsistence of the contract awarded in favour of the petitioner vide
the proceedings in Letter No.llT/RGUKT/RKV/E-BROC/Manpower/
2019/01, dated 28.09.2019 issued by him as arbitrary, illegal,
colourable exercise of power and contrary to well-established legal
principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the tender notice,
dated 29.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.2
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 grant stay of all further
proceedings in pursuance of the tender notice, dated 29.01.2026
issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the Writ
Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.6379 of 2026
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the tender notice, dated 29.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.3 inviting tenders through E-Procurement portal for supply of man-power on outsourcing basis, during the subsistence of the contract awarded in favour of the Petitioner vide proceedings in Lr.No.IIT/RGUKT/RKV/E- BROC/Manpower/2019/01, dated 28.09.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Respondent No.3 had entered into a 'Memorandum of Understanding' (for short, 'MOU') with the Petitioner for the allotment of outsourcing services (manpower supply) in the temporary campus of Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Ongole campus and the R.K Valley campus on certain conditions. The clause-27 of the MOU states that 'in the case of cancellation/termination/withdrawal of the contract, by either party, one month prior notice to be given'.
3. While so, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued impugned tender notice on 29.01.2026 calling for house-keeping services/man- power services/security services on out-sourcing basis through 4 agency. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned tender notice cannot be issued in the face of clause 27 of the MOU, which requires a one-month prior notice for cancellation of the same.
4. Sri Siva Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that at the stage of issuance of the tender notice, there is no requirement for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue a termination notice in terms of Clause 27 of the MOU, and in the event any contract is awarded to third parties pursuant to the tender notice, steps in accordance with Clause 27 of the MOU would be adhered to by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Learned Standing Counsel passed on signed instructions of Respondent No.3, wherein the Paragraph No.10 reads as under:-
"The petitioner places heavy reliance on Clause 27 of the MoU dated 01.07.2021, which stipulates that either party wishing to cancel, terminate, or withdraw from the contract must give one month's prior written notice to the other party. It is respectfully submitted that the said clause has not been triggered, as RGUKT Ongole has neither cancelled, terminated, nor withdrawn the existing contract. PCMPC continues to be engaged and paid as per the existing MoU. The impugned Tender Notice dated 29.01.2026 is an independent administrative action taken by RGUKT in the exercise of its statutory powers and procurement obligations. A tender notice is a preliminary preparatory step - an invitation to bid and does not, by itself, constitute termination of any existing arrangement. Clause 27 will become applicable only if and when RGUKT issues a formal notice of termination, which has not been done."5
6. In the light of the submissions and written instructions, the grievance of the Petitioner is addressed, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.
7. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.03.2026 chs 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 83 WRIT PETITION No.6379 of 2026 Date: 06.03.2026 chs