(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i. declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner vide Rc.No.D1/14026(34)711/2026 dated 31.03.2026, as communicated by the Executive Officer through proceedings Rc.No.ENDW/89/2026 dated 31.03.2026, cancelling the tender in respect of collection of human hair (tonsure offerings), and the consequential Tender Notification in Rc.No. 1/06/2026 dated 31.03.2026 re-scheduling to conduct auction once again on 16.04.2026, as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Principles of natural justice and fair play, and consequently set aside the same ii. and direct the respondents to confirm the petitioner as the successful bidder in the auction held on 11.2.2026 in pursuant to the Tender notification dated 21.1.2026 and grant the license for collection of human hair (tonsure offerings) in his favour for the period 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027, iii. and pass such other order or orders.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
“…..pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
i) declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner vide Rc.No.D1/ 14026(34)/11/2026 dated 31.03.2026, as communicated by the Executive through Officer proceedings Rc.No.ENDW/89/2026 dated 31.03.2026, cancelling the tender in respect of collection of human hair (tonsure offerings), and the consequential Tender Notification in Rc.No.1/06/2026 dated 31.03.2026 re-scheduling to conduct auction once again on 16.04.2026, as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Principles of natural justice and fair play, and consequently set aside the same;
ii. and direct the respondents to confirm the petitioner as the successful bidder in the auction held on 11.2.2026 in pursuant to the Tender notification dated 21.1.2026 and grant the license for collection of human hair (tonsure offerings) in his favour for the period 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027,
iii. and to pass such other order or orders ...
2. According to the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, is notified temple under Section 6(a) A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987, situated at Kasapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapuram District, and it is a renowned pilgrimage temple attracting a large number of devotees, and the devotees offer hair (tonsure). As it is a significant religious practice, constitutes one of the major sources of revenue to the Devasthanam.
3. A Notification inviting tender was issued on dated 21.01.2026 by the 3rd respondent Devasthanam inviting bids for grant of various license rights for the financial year 2026-27 for the period from 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027, and in certain cases up to 2028-29, through three modes, namely, (i) open public auction, (ii) e-tender through e-procurement platform, and (iii) sealed tenders, thereby ensuring wide participation and transparency in the process. In addition thereto, the sealed tender schedules were made available from 09.02.2026 to 10.02.2026, and the sealed tenders received were opened on 11.02.2026 and the open public auction was conducted on 11.02.2026 in the office of the Devasthanam, thereby schedule was made for all stages of the tender process in a systematic and time bound manner.
4. As per the notification an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) was prescribed, with a view to ensure participation of serious and financially capable bidders and to safeguard the revenue interests of the temple. The petitioner participated in the tender process for the said license right by remitting an EMD of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) and actively participated in the open auction conducted on 11.02.2026. The petitioner quoted a sum of Rs.1,36,50,000/- and emerged as the highest bidder in the open auction conducted on 11.02.2026.
5. Pursuant to the completion of the tender process, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, addressed a letter dated 18.02.2026 to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, seeking approval & confirmation of the highest bidders in respect of all license rights, including collection of hair offerings. However, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 31.03.2026, did not approve the tender of the petitioner while approving the confirmation of all other license rights, arbitrarily did not approve the tender on the ground that the bid amount was low and contrary to the tender condition of upset price of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one Crore Fifty Lakhs only) and directing the Executive Officer to conduct a fresh tender process.
6. The present writ petition is being filed challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner vide Rc.No.D1/14026(34)/11/2026 dated 31.03.2026, inter alia cancelling the tender in respect of collection of human hair (tonsure offerings by devotees) in which the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder, and the consequential Tender Notification in Rc.No. 1/06/2026 dated 31.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing to conduct a fresh tender on 16.04.2026, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and mainly on the following grounds:
(i) That the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s bid as low is contrary to the statutory scheme governing the grant of license as stipulated under Rule 4 (2) (C) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and other Right (Other than Agriculture Lands) Lease and License Rules, 2003 G.O.Ms.No.426 dated 09.11.2015, (for short hereafter refer as License Rules) and the permissible enhancement is only 10% in the second year over the first year fee, the previous year was Rs. 1,02,60,000/-, whereas in the present tender process, the petitioner quoted a sum of Rs. 1,36,50,000/- and emerged as the highest bidder, thereby offering an increase of Rs.33,90,000/-, which is approximately 33.04% higher than the previous year, clearly demonstrating maximization of revenue to the Devasthanam.
(ii) Upon being declared as the highest bidder, on the demand made by the temple authorities, the petitioner have paid a sum of Rs.68,25,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs, Twenty five thousand only). as part payment, in addition to the EMD of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), and thus has already remitted a substantial portion of the bid amount to sum of Rs.1,18,65,000/- (Rupees ons Crore, eighteen thousand, sixty five thousand only), leaving only a balance d Rs. 18.25,000/-, which was to be paid subsequently on or before 31.03.2026, after formal approval of the tender by the Commissioner/2nd respondent.
(iii) Once a public is conducted and the highest bid is obtained, such bid cannot be rejected except on valid, germane, and legally sustainable grounds.
(iv) The petitioner was not offered any notice or prior opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of the tender and the impugned action is therefore, violation of principles of natural justice.
(v) The cancellation of the petitioner’s bid defeats legitimate expectation
(vi) The rejection of the petitioner’s bid on grounds not farming part of tender conditions is illegal and renders the entire action is unsustainable. More particularly, the Notification Inviting Tender does not indicate the upset price, as specified in Rule 2 (A) License rules which is extracted hereunder: Before going for tender-cum-public auction, the Executive Authority has to fix up the upset price basing on the prevailing market conditions and the same shall be mentioned in the public notice.
(vii) And the tender conditions were not made available to the petitioner, and the same were provided only after the opening of both the technical and financial bid on 11.02.2026.
7. RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
(A) The 3rd respondent has filed the counter and it is asserted that certain conditions were imposed in the tender documents and a condition prescribing the upset price for the respective licence, which was fixed at a predetermined amount by the competent authority, and the participants were required to bid accordingly. In the present case, as per the tender conditions issued vide Rc. No.1/06/2026 dated 21.01.2026, a specific condition, namely Condition No. 20, clearly stipulated that the upset price for the subject tender was fixed at Rs.1,50,00,000/-. It was further stated that bid quoted by the petitioner is below the said upset price would be liable to be rejected. The petitioner, having accepted the said tender conditions, duly signed the same in acknowledgment thereof.
(B) It is further submitted that at the time of conducting the public auction, the sealed tenders and e-tenders were not opened; rather, it was decided that the sealed tenders and e-tenders would be opened only after completion of the public auction. Upon the request of the participants, the auction was nevertheless conducted with the expectation that the bid amounts might increase during the course of the process and that, upon opening of the sealed tenders and e-tenders, the bids might reach or exceed the upset price/fixed price. However, even after completion of the entire tender-cum-auction process, including the opening of sealed tenders and e-tenders, the upset price was not reached. The petitioner, however, emerged as the highest bidder by quoting an amount of Rs. 1,36,50,000/-, which is admittedly lower than the upset price prescribed under Condition No. 20 of the tender conditions.
(C) It is sated that as per G.O.Ms.No. 866 dated 08.08.2003, the Lease and Licence Rules, 2003, under Clauses 12(1), (2), and (3), clearly vest the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority to confirm or reject any lease or licence and as per tender condition No.19 for approval and finalisation of all tender licences, the 2nd respondent is competent authority. The Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent temple sent all the tender licenses, including the highest bid amounts, to the 2nd respondent for approval and necessary action. However, in the petitioner's case, the bid amount was below the prescribed upset price and, therefore, did not satisfy the mandatory condition. In accordance with the said provisions the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.D1/14026(34)/11/2026 dated 31.03.2026, rejecting the tender relating to the collection of human hair on the ground that the bid amount secured was below the upset price. Consequently, the Executive Officer of the subject Devasthanam was directed to conduct a fresh tender-cum-auction. The 2nd respondent accepted all other licences, as the bid amounts in those cases were above the upset price in accordance with the tender conditions, except for the licence pertaining to the collection of human hair.
(D) It is further submitted that, in the present case, if the tender had been accepted, it would have resulted in a substantial loss of approximately Rs.50,00,000/- to the temple, which would otherwise have been utilized for its development. Upon cancellation of the subject auction/tender and issuance of a fresh tender notification, several participants have expressed willingness to offer amounts exceeding Rs. 1,50,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only). And in pursuance of the orders issued by the Commissioner of Endowments vide Rc.No.D1/14026(34)/11/2026, dt. 31.03.2026, the same has been informed to the petitioner vide Letter No. ENDW/89/2026, dt.31.03.2026 and proposed call for fresh tenders on 16.04.2026 and a notification was issued to that effect on 31.03.2026 and the same was published in Eenadu news daily on 01.04.2026.
8. Heard learned designated Senior Counsel Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, assisted by N. Bharat Babu, for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Temple Sri T. Venugopal Rao.
9. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT:
The primary thrust of the counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 2 (A) License rules specify that before going for tender-cum-public auction, the Executive Authority has to fix up the upset price basing on the prevailing market conditions and the same shall be mentioned in the public notice and notification does not indicate the upset price. And the tender conditions were not made available to the petitioner, and the same were provided only after the opening of both the technical and financial bid on 11.02.2026. the previous year was Rs. 1,02,60,000/-, whereas in the present tender process, the petitioner quoted a sum of Rs. 1,36,50,000/-and emerged as the highest bidder, thereby offering an increase of Rs.33,90,000/-, which is approximately 33.04% higher than the previous year, clearly demonstrating maximization of revenue to the Devasthanam. Hence it is prayed to allow the writ petition intoto for the relief prayed.
10. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Golden Food Products India vs State Of U.P reported in AIR 2026 (SC) 335 for the proposition that where there was no demand for selling of the plot as only two bidders participated in the auction. “The bid of the appellant was above the reserve price. Then there was no other reason to cancel the auction sale of the subject plot. And the respondent was under an obligation in law having accepted the bid offered by the appellant to issue the allotment letter instead of cancelling the auction on the basis of irrelevant considerations that too behind the back of the appellant. Expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction cannot be a reason to cancel an auction held in accordance with law.”
11. In the aforesaid judgment of the apex court has found fault with the respondent have accepting the bid of the tenderer cancelling subsequently on irrelevant consideration and the facts are not applicable, in the present case the bid of the petitioner was not accepted and it is rejected for quoting less price than the upset price.
12. The contention of the 2nd respondent-Endowment Commissioner who is the competent authority to confirm or reject any lease or licence, and as per tender condition No.19 the 2nd respondent is the authority either to reject or approval of license and the bid amount that was quoted by the petitioner was below the upset price, and the upset of price of the bid is specified in the tender conditions. Accordingly, the tender was rejected.
13. As seen from Notification Inviting Tenders it explicitly directs the interested parties, for details to visit the website www.tender.apeprocurement.gov.in or contact mobile number 9491000655. In the Notification the bidders are advised to visit the website to know the detailed terms and conditions. The tender conditions were not designed to suit any one and the said conditions apply equally to all bidders. When the notification clearly indicate the bidders to view these conditions online, the petitioner’s claim that the upset price was not disclosed in the initial notice is meritless, especially as they only raised this issue after both technical and financial bids had been finalized.
14. For example, certain documents are required to submit the tender, though they were not specified in the Notice Inviting Tender, however, the petitioner has filed the relevant documents and participated in the tender. The Executive officer of the temple is only a recommending authority as per G.O.Ms.No. 866 dated 08.08.2003, the Lease and Licence Rules, 2003, under Clauses 12(1), (2), and (3), 2nd respondent Endowment Commissioner who is the competent authority to confirm or reject any lease or licence. It is found by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has quoted price less than the upset rightly rejected the tender.
15. In reply affidavit, it is contended that the temple authorities initiated re-auction in collusion with recurring bidders Mr. M. Raja and Mr. K.Yadagiri, thereby vitiating the process through arbitrariness, connivance the temple authorities set about doing it to conduct therefore it is vitiate by the and rendering it liable to be set aside. However, as the tender conditions explicitly stipulates an upset price of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and the reply affidavit fails to demonstrate that these two individuals participated in the auction with low bid so as to manipulate the outcome, the court finds this contention is invented for the purpose of this writ petition.
16. Legal position is also well settled that the scope of interference in tender matter or tender condition is limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.G. Projects Limited Vs Vinod Kumar Jain and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 has taken note of the earlier judgment on the point and has reiterated that it is for the authority inviting the bids to see whether the bidder satisfies the tender conditions and that the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the contracts for want of necessary expertise.
17. This Court is of the view that the decision of the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice inviting fresh tender on the ground that the petitioner quoted less price than the upset price cannot be said to be unfair, arbitrary or whimsical, so as to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
