Sr. No. 04 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 170/2025 in WP(C) No. 2808/2024 CM No. 5324/2025 CM No. 5326/2025 CM No. 5327/2025 Caveat No. 1464/2025 c/w LPA No. 269/2025 CM No. 7000/2025 CM No. 7001/2025 CM No. 7752/2025 Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Sapra, Advocate, Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate and Mr. Amjiz Maqbool, Advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate ( LPA No. 269/2025) V/s Healthium Medtech Ltd. & Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate Ms. Savita Sarna, Advocate Mr. Varut Kumar Gupta, Advocate Ms. Manila Mujal, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 13.07.2026 LPA No. 170/2025: 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 02.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.2808/2024 titled ‘Healthium Medtech Limited vs. Union Territory of J&K and ors’. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to set aside the Minutes of Meeting dated 02.09.2024 and all consequent decisions made by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 2 including the rejection of bids, finalization of the contract after opening of financial bids, issuance of letters of Intent and execution of rate contracts in favour of respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also directed to initiate fresh tender process immediately upon pronouncement of judgment and also to rectify all ambiguities in the existing tender documents. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties fairly submit that the respondents have issued a fresh tender in terms of the judgment dated 02.06.2025 and have implemented the direction contained therein, therefore, nothing survives for consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the only grievance of the appellant is with regard to the observations made regarding the alleged monopoly of the appellant-company in the tendering process as stated in Paragraph Nos. 1, 39, 40, 50 and 57 of the judgment. These observations, are erroneous as the facts, regarding the same were neither pleaded nor any opportunity to rebut them was granted to the appellant. 4. We are of the considered view that since a fresh tender has been issued by the respondents/authorities and all the parties also intend to participate in the same, the judgment stands implemented. Consequently, nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be granted the liberty to approach the learned writ Court for renew of the judgment. 3 6. The present Letters Patent Appeal has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for review of the judgment, if so advised, in accordance with law. LPA No. 269/2025: 1. There are some errors in the impugned judgment which require correction. However, keeping in view the fact that the fresh tender has been issued, the appellant seeks withdrawal of the instant Letters Patent Appeal with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for correction of the judgment. 2. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge Judge JAMMU Amit 13.07.2026