Telangana HC dismisses firm’s appeal in Vemulawada temple human hair auction dispute
The dispute centred on the "6th tender" floated by temple authorities for the sale of unprocessed human hair collected from devotees at the Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Devasthanam in Vemulawada.
The Telangana High Court has upheld the auction of human hair at the Vemulawada temple, rejecting a challenge by a firm that skipped the tender process. (File photo enchanced using AI)
The Telangana High Court last week dismissed a writ appeal filed by a commercial hair processor firm, upholding a previous decision of a single judge regarding the auction of human hair at the Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Devasthanam in Vemulawada.
A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar, in its order on January 7, ruled that the petitioner-appellant did not have “locus standi” to approach the single judge for relief, “having not participated in the 6th tender but sought for quashing the same after the tender had been awarded to the respondent No.3”. The bench added that the court found not reasons to interfere with the order passed by the single judge.
On July 29, 2025, a single judge dismissed the original petition by the firm, Durai Enterprises, which processes raw hair for commercial purposes, noting that the contract had already been legally awarded to the third respondent firm.
What happened
The dispute centred on the “6th tender” floated by temple authorities for the sale of unprocessed human hair collected from devotees. The appellant participated in previous unsuccessful bidding rounds but did not participate in the tender. The tender was eventually awarded to the third respondent from April 2025 to April 2027 after they were identified as the highest bidder.
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Endowments Department’s decision to stop the tender process, and to direct the temple authorities to complete the process of opening the tender and bidding for the same.
The single judge, however, dismissed the petition, stating that the tender had already been allotted to the third respondent in accordance with due procedure and had been approved by the department. Before the division bench, the appellant argued that the single judge erred in their decision, contending that the contract had already been finalised.
Flaws in appeal
The court, while dismissing the writ appeal, highlighted several critical flaws in the appellant’s case. The court ruled that because the appellant did not participate in the 6th Tender, they had no “legally protected interest” or standing to challenge its outcome. The bench also noted that the appellant’s prayers were “mutually contradictory,” as they simultaneously asked to quash a tender while also seeking to force its opening.
Story continues below this ad
The bench concluded that “the second prayer in the Writ Petition admittedly became infructuous” since by the time the appellant approached the court in July 2025, the license had already been granted and approved by the competent authority.
The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, and dismissed it without costs.
Rahul V Pisharody is Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting for IE on various news developments from Telangana since 2019. He is currently reporting on legal matters from the Telangana High Court.
Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of city reporters, district correspondents, other centres and internet desk for over three years.
A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. ... Read More