I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA DATE: 16.03.2026 BETWEEN :

M/s. Sri Devi Bharathi Enterprises … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Endowments Department, Hyderabad & 2 others …. Respondents

O R D E R

Heard Sri P.Venkata Ramana Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in issuance of impugned Memo in Rc.No.C1/18604/2025-1, Dt.03.01.2026 and information Notice Vide Rc.No.33/SLVDM/2025, Dt.08.01.2026 cancelling the petitioner’s license Rights of Collection of Human Hairs from 01.01.2026 to 31.12.2027 and calling E-Tender cum Public Auction vide FILE/NIT Number 33/SLVSDM/HUMAN HAIR/2025-4^th call Dt.20.01.2026, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, Discrimination, violation of the principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of the provisions of The Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to continue the petitioner’s license rights confirmed in FILE/NIT number 33/SLVSDM/HUMAN HAIR/2025-2^nd call Dt. 28.11.2025 for tender period from 01.01.2026 to 31.12.2027 for collection of Human Hairs in the 3^rd respondent premises, direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to receive the deposit amounts from the petitioner which are sent by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner’s bank account, and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner’s firm participated in an e-tender issued on 28.11.2025 by the 3^rd respondent for the collection of human hair for the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.12.2027 and the petitioner had emerged as the highest bidder. The petitioner’s bid was confirmed, and an agreement was executed on 23.12.2025 upon payment of all the required deposits. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced operations on 01.01.2026. However, based on a memo dated 03.01.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s licence on 08.01.2026 without issuing any prior notice and refunded the deposits. Subsequently, fresh tenders were issued repeatedly, culminating in the 4^th call dated 20.01.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, seeking to set aside the cancellation and to permit continuation of the licence rights.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

(A) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, in particular, para 8 is extracted hereunder:

“8 I submit that subsequently, a fourth call notification was issued. At that stage, the petitioner again approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.1904 of 2026. This Hon’ble Court, by order dated 22.01.2026,was pleased to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process and directed the respondents not to finalize the auction until further orders. In strict compliance with the said order, the auction was conducted on 23.01.2026. Six bidders participated in the auction. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder both in the open auction and in the online financial bid, quoting an amount of Rs.1,46,79,999/-. The petitioner was thus allowed to participate fully in the tender process without any restriction, which clearly establishes that there was no discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court dated 22.01.2026, the petitioner participated in the tender process and he became the highest bidder both in the open auction and online financial bid, quoting an amoun