Court questions 3-year extension of Yadadri temple tender; directs authorities to consider representations

The HC on Wednesday questioned the extension of a tender related licence at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadadri, for three years, even while an earlier tender was still in force.

Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar heard a writ filed by Annaldas Venkatesh of Yadagirigutta, who sought directions to the temple authorities to consider his representations dated April 14 and June 28, 2026. The hearing followed a direction issued by the court on Tuesday asking Endowments commissioner M Hanumantha Rao to remain present. He appeared before the court.

During the hearing, the court took serious note of a letter issued from the Endowments commissioner’s office extending the licence for three years. It observed that the earlier tender covered the period from April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 and questioned how a fresh three-year extension could be granted while the earlier tender was pending.

The court questioned references made in the official correspondence to a local MLA and observed that such external references should not influence decisions relating to tenders. It said the issuance of tenders was within the domain of the concerned department and that judicial review in tender issue was limited, except where there was illegality.

Following the court’s observations, the EC’s office issued proceedings withdrawing the earlier letter extending the licence. The withdrawal proceedings were placed before the court.

Justice Kumar observed that since the disputed letter had emanated from the commissioner’s office, it was for that office to withdraw it. The also expressed displeasure over the manner in which the withdrawal letter referred to the HC observations.

Having noted that the letter had been withdrawn, the court confined the issue to the petitioner’s original request. The petitioner had sought consideration of his representations concerning the proposed tender notification for the supply of vastra at the temple.

The court observed that decisions relating to issuance of tenders fell within the jurisdiction of the Endowments Commissioner and the temple’s Executive Officer. It said the court was not inclined to go into merits of the tender process at this stage.

The authorities concerned were directed to consider the petitioner’s representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court made it clear that it was not directing the authorities on how the tender process should be conducted,but only required them to consider the representations in accordance with law.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Hans India