APHC010572062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 29754/2025 Between: 1. R CHITTI BABU, S/O. R. MANOHAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. 1-90/7/B/142, FLAT NO. 401, KVR MANGALITH NIVAS PATRIKA NAGAR, MADHAPUR, SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500081 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521225 3. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NEW BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517502 4. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, CHURCH STREET, THOTAPALYAM, CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001 5. THE VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VIGILANCE COMMISSION, 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING NO.5, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 500 022 2 2 6. SRI SWAYABHU SRI VARASIDDI VINAYAKA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KANIPAKAM ,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No. 2 to 5, in taking action against temple officials of Respondent No.6 Devasthanam for the breach of e- tendering protocols and procedural improprieties committed in connection with the allotment of canteen and service station contracts at the said temple, vide Tender IDs 844680 and 844695, issued under Rc. No. A1/2417/2025 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions And Endowments Act, 1987 besides being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to forthwith consider and act upon the petitioners complaint dated 29.09.2025, by conducting a detailed enquiry into the tender irregularities committed by the concerned temple officials of Respondent No.6 Devasthanam, and to initiate necessary disciplinary and penal proceedings against all officials found responsible and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S VARADARAJULU CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 29754/2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the submissions of Sri S. Varadarajulu Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he participated in the tender process for the maintenance of the Temple canteen, guest house etc., for a period from 01.10.2025 to 30.09.2026. Pursuant to the respondent No.6 - Temple calling for tenders, the petitioner has participated in the tender. As per the tender schedule, the last date for receipt of bids was 22.09.2025 by 3:00 PM, the technical bid opening was scheduled at 4:00 PM on 22.09.2025, and the financial or price bid opening was fixed for 11:00 AM on 23.09.2025. 3. It is contended that the time for opening the financial bid was fixed as 23.09.2025 at 11:00 AM, however, even before the scheduled time, respondent No. 5, along with other staff, opened the financial bid before 11:00 AM on 23.09.2025. The premature opening of the financial bid has led to the exposure of the petitioner’s confidential information relating to the bid price, allowing the other bidders to alter or adjust their bid prices. It is also contended that such premature opening of the financial bid has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition. 4 4 4. When the matter has been taken up for consideration today, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.6 has placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that after the opening of the financial bids, the amount quoted in the bids was found to be Rs 10,55,555/-, which is 47.26% less than the previous years. Therefore, the respondent No.6-Temple has proposed to cancel the tender and issue a fresh tender notification. Accordingly, a new tender notification was issued on 17.10.2025, and tenders were conducted on 27.10.2025. Tenders were awarded to the highest bidders, subject to the approval of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, and the petitioner has also participated in the tenders conducted on 27.10.2025. 5. In view of the foregoing, the issued raised in the Writ Petition would not survive for further adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 31.10.2025 MSI 5 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 29754/2025 Dated: 31.10.2025 MSI