M/S NESTOR PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, HAVING v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL AND ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Feb 2026
- Bench
- VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Recording the said submission, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 8160/2024 Between:
1. M/S NESTOR PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, HAVING ITS ASHOKA ESTATE, 24, REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-1, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SANJEEV SHARMA ...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL AND ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY
2. ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PLOT NO.9, SURVBEY NO.49, IT PARK, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATION, ENTERPRISE AN ...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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in incorporating Clause 2(b)(II)(f) and Clause 3(iii) into the tender document bearing Tender No. 158-5/APMSIDC/MEDICINE WING/2023-24 floated by the 2nd Respondent, under the aegis of the 1st Respondent, for supply of general medicines to the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, biased, irrational and unreasonable and against the principles of administrative law and amounting to an abuse of its powers as a tendering authority, and consequently set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to accept the bid of the Petitioner, without any reference to the Tender No. 158- 5/APMSIDC/MEDICINE WING/2023-24 and pass Clause 2(b)(II)(f) and Clause 3(iii) of IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to accept the bid of the Petitioner under the tender document bearing Tender No. 158-5/APMSIDC/MEDICINE WrNG/2023-24 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP)
2. S PRANATHI The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO:8160 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 04.04.2024, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the subject tender. Therefore, pending writ petition, the claim of the petitioner was redressed.
In view of the same, the cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.
Recording the said submission, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
04.02.2026 BSP VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J __________________________________ 62 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.8160 of 2024
04.02.2026 BSP
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Feb 2026. The bench was VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.