Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATh
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^
PRESENT
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTIC
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RACT
WRIT APPEAL NO: 897 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the
Order dated 18.10.2024 in W.P.No.7883 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.,
Between:
M/s. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited, Having its registered office at G-1,
Ashoka Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001. Represented by
its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sanjeev Sharma.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER _
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Medical and Health,
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
Andhra Pradesh.
2. Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development
Corporation, An enterprise of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Plot
No.9, Survey No.49, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District Andhra
Pradesh - 522503. Rep by its Managing Director.
3. M/s. Cyano Pharma Private Limited, 115/C, Industrial Estate,
Pologround, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
<?•
lA 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 to stay the operation of the Order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the
Learned Single Judge of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.7883 of 2024.^
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. VEERA REDDY FOR
SRI S.VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR _
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW„
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI CHITTEM VENKAT REDDY^
SC FOR APMSIDC
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVAD
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
1
4 HCJ &RRR,J
W.A.No.897/2024
APHC010486072024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
0? (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 897/2024
Between:
Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI
2.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW
3. VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM (SC FOR APMSIDC)
The Court made the following ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Heal'd. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
learned G.P. for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for
2
HCJ &RRR,J
W.A,No.897/2024
respondent No.l, Sri Chittam Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Anoop Koushik, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3.
2. The appellant herein had been awarded a contract of supply
of medicines and medical supphes, after he was declared as the
successful bidder in the tender, called for such purpose, bearing No. 123-
8/APMSIDC/MEDIGINE WING/2022-23, floated by the 2^^ respondent.
The appellant had been issued various purchase orders, for supply of
various drugs to the 2>i'i respondent. Supplies, of some of these drugs.
are also said to have been done by the appellant. However, on
08.02.2024, the 2'^'^ respondent sought to cancel two purchase orders
issued to the appellant and awarded the said purchase orders to the 3^^
respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2^^ respondent, the
appellant had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.7883 of 2024.
3. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge was that the appellant had been regularly supplying drugs
required by the 2'i«i respondent, in accordance with the terms of
contract. However, the appellant started facing increasing difficulty in
maintaining the timehnes for supply of drugs, as huge amounts were
due from the 2'^'^ respondent. The appellant contended that on account
of withholding of amounts due to the appellant, the timeline set out by
the 2'1'i respondent, for supply of drugs, could not be comphed with. The
3
HCJ aRRR.J
W.A.No.897/2024
appellant contended that in view of the said difficulties, created by the
respondent, it would not be open to the respondent to terminate
the supply contract or the purchase orders which had already been
placed on the appellant.
4. The respondent took the stand that the agreement, as
per the tender notification, had placed strict timelines for supply of
drugs in as much as these drugs were distributed throughout the State
for school children, pregnant women, anemic women and lactating
mothers and any delay in supply of such tablets / drugs would cause
huge inconvenience to the said target groups.The respondent aJso
took the stand that the appellant had been debarred in Gujarat as well
as Kerala for its inability, to honour the supply contracts entered by the
appellant.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, was of
the view that the issues raised before the learned Single Judge require a
close examination by adducing evidence and that such proceedings
would have to be maintained only before the competent Civil Court
having original jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge also took the view
that the issues raised, which are purely civil in nature and related to
contractual obhgations, would at best,be resolved before a Civil Court
and not before this Coimt in its writ jurisdiction. The learned Single
Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
4
HCJ &RRR,J
W.A.No.897/2024
case of Jagadlsh Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors., i for this
proposition. Consequently, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the
writ petition by an order dated 18.10.2024, leaving it open to the
appellant to avail of its remedies.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been
moved before this Court by the appellant.
7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant would contend that the 2ii'i respondent, while pointing to the
delays of the appellant in supplying drugs / tablets for which purchase
orders have been placed, has conveniently ignored the fact that non
payment of huge amounts of money due to the appellantwas the root
cause for the delay in supply of drugs / tablets. He would submit that the
2iid respondent cannot seek prompt supply of drugs while withholding
payments for earlier supplies. He would submit that there are no issues
of fact which require further adjudication by way of a trial in a civil
Court.
8. A perusal of the material placed before this Court would
show that there are questions of fact, which require further
examination and the finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard
cannot be interfered with. It is settled law that while certain contractual
questions can be looked into by a Constitutional Court, it is always
(2007) 14 see 517
5
HCJ &RRR,J
W.A.No.897/2024
appropriate that such disputes are taken up in civil Courts when
complicated questions of fact arise. In the circumstances, this Court
does not find any merit in the writ appeal.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed leaving it open to
the appellant to avail of its remedies, as held by the learned Single
Judge. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
//TRUE COPY// Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU
DEPUTY>REGISTRAR
To, .
SE ^W^fTOFFICER
1. OneCCto Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] ^
2. TwoCCsto GP for Medical Health & FW, High Court of Andhra^
Pradesh. [OUT]
3. One CC to Sri Chittem Venkat Reddy, SC for APMSIDC(OPUC)
^
4. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate (OPUC) ^
5. Three C.D. Copies.
Cnr
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/11/2024
JUDGMENT
WA.No.897 of 2024 X
15 NOV 202^1
^ . Current Section
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS
