The Telangana High Court has firmly dismissed a legal challenge from a private agency. This agency contested a government contract for collecting human hair at the Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy temple in Vemulawada, located in Sircilla district.
Court's Clear Ruling on Bidder Standing
A division bench comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar delivered the judgment. The bench held a clear position. The petitioner agency had no right to question the tender's outcome. Why? Because the agency did not participate in the bidding process itself.
The court ruled that a non-bidder lacks the legal standing, or locus standi, to seek the cancellation of a contract. This is especially true after the contract has already been formally awarded to another party.
Origin of the Temple Contract Dispute
The dispute began after the temple authorities awarded the contract. They gave it to another firm. This firm emerged as the highest bidder during the official auction process.
The bench scrutinized the petitioner's arguments. It found them to be mutually contradictory. The agency sought directions to complete the bidding process. At the same time, it asked the court to quash that very same process. The court viewed this as inconsistent.
Case Lacked Merit, Says Bench
In view of these contradictions, the court held that the case simply lacked merit. It declined to interfere with an earlier decision. That decision had already dismissed the petition.
The appellant is a Tamil Nadu-based agency. Its business is processing raw human hair. It first approached a single judge of the High Court. It sought the cancellation of the government's decision to halt the tender process. It also wanted a direction to complete the opening and bidding for the project.
Single Judge's Initial Decision Upheld
The single judge dismissed that initial plea. The judge observed that the contract had already been lawfully awarded. This award followed all due process.
Challenging this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the division bench. It argued that the single judge erred. The error, it claimed, was in rejecting the petition solely because the contract was finalized. The appellant sought to set aside that earlier ruling.
However, the division bench examined the grievance. It also heard arguments from the endowment department. After this examination, the bench rejected the appeal. It made several observations against the appellant's claims, reinforcing the initial judgment.
