Telangana High Court Rejects Firm's Appeal in Temple Hair Auction Case
The Telangana High Court has firmly dismissed a writ appeal filed by a commercial hair processing company. The court upheld the auction of human hair at the famous Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Devasthanam in Vemulawada. This decision reinforces the temple authorities' tender process for selling unprocessed hair collected from devotees.
Court Finds No Grounds for Interference
A Division Bench comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar delivered the order on January 7. The bench ruled that the petitioner-appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the tender outcome. The company did not participate in the crucial "6th tender" but later sought to quash it after the contract had been awarded to another firm.
The court explicitly stated it found no reasons to interfere with the earlier single judge's order. The bench emphasized that the appellant had no legally protected interest in the matter since they abstained from the bidding process.
Background of the Temple Hair Dispute
The entire controversy centered on the sixth tender floated by temple authorities. This tender involved the sale of unprocessed human hair donated by devotees at the Vemulawada temple. The appellant firm, Durai Enterprises, processes raw hair for commercial purposes.
While the company participated in previous unsuccessful bidding rounds, it notably did not take part in this specific tender. Temple authorities eventually awarded the contract to the third respondent firm from April 2025 to April 2027. This decision came after identifying them as the highest bidder through proper procedures.
Legal Proceedings and Contradictory Prayers
Durai Enterprises filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Endowments Department's decision to stop the tender process. Simultaneously, they requested the court to direct temple authorities to complete the process of opening tenders and conducting bids. A single judge dismissed this petition on July 29, 2025.
The judge noted that the contract had already been legally awarded to the third respondent following due procedure. Departmental approval had also been secured for this allocation. Before the division bench, the appellant argued that the single judge erred in their decision, claiming the contract had been finalized improperly.
Critical Flaws in the Appeal
The division bench highlighted several significant flaws in the appellant's case while dismissing the writ appeal. The court pointed out that the appellant's prayers were mutually contradictory. They simultaneously sought to quash a tender while also demanding its forced opening.
The bench concluded that the second prayer in the writ petition had become infructuous. By the time the appellant approached the court in July 2025, the license had already been granted and approved by competent authorities. The court ultimately determined that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it without imposing any costs.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces important principles in tender and contract matters. It establishes that entities cannot challenge tender outcomes without participating in the process. The ruling also underscores that courts will not interfere with properly conducted tender procedures that follow established guidelines.
The temple's hair auction represents a significant commercial activity, given the global demand for human hair in various industries. The court's decision provides clarity and finality to this particular dispute, allowing temple authorities to proceed with their contractual arrangements without further legal challenges from non-participants.
