Court Can't Interfere Over Potential Business Loss Due To Location Of Jan Aushadhi Kendras, Must Preserve Welfare: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to interdict the final approval granted to a woman entrepreneur to operate a Kendra (centre) under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) at Kumbra Village in Puttur Taluk.

Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Savinaya also a female entrepreneur who had approached the court questioning the final approval given to operate the Kendra to another woman Sheela G Bhat.

Kendras or centres ensure availability of quality medicine at low prices, where medicines could be sold at 50% to 90% cheaper rates, compared to market rates. It said

"What is projected by the petitioner is purported loss of business by granting another Kendra within a short distance, while it is not the case, as the facts bare consideration hereinabove. But, it would not be for this court to interfere merely because a business prospect is perceived to be threatened rather, the Court must preserve the spirit of a welfare-oriented scheme designed for the many, not the few. There is no arbitrariness that is demonstrable or palpable in the case at hand. The geographical area that is contended to be overlapping, has not overlapped, as the application of the petitioner remained an application. Therefore, in conclusion, I find the petition is devoid of merit. No illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness is 28 discernable from the grant of approval to the 1st respondent, to iterate public interest would be ill-served if this Court were to interdict a lawful and beneficial initiative on such slender grounds"

The petitioner contended that there cannot be two Kendras within 1.5 kms. Admittedly, the distance between the approval granted to the petitioner for the purpose of establishment of the Kendra and the subsequent approval granted to the Kendra of Sheela G Bhat are at a distance of 600 meters. Moreover, the store-code and approval granted to the 1st respondent should stand cancelled as the application of the petitioner was the first to come in.

The respondents submitted that Kendras are set up after due authorization from the Central Implementing Agency strictly in terms of the Scheme. Both the applications were considered and the application of respondent No.1 was received on 16-11-2023 through offline mode and subsequently, through online mode on 01-12-2023. The petitioner has made the application on 05-12-2023 in the offline mode. The assessment was done and the Kendra is now approved to be granted to Bhat. 

Further, no illegality can be projected as the object is to ensure that Kendras are easily accessible to the general public and to keep fair competition among two Janaushadhi Kendras, distance policy of minimum of 1 km between two outlets is envisaged.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records noted that since Bhat's application was the first and had met all the requirements, the application is considered and store-code and licence for establishment of Kendra is granted in Bhat's favour. Pursuant to the grant of licence, an agreement is also entered into between Deputy General Manager Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India (R2) and the Assistant Manager Head Quarter Hubballi PMBJP (R3) and Bhat.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that she was granted in principle approval to start the Kendra the court said “The petitioner who did not get the approval finally, cannot contend her rights were crystalized by the approval being taken to its logical conclusion. It was only an in-principle approval subject to final approval. This would not clothe any right in favour of the petitioner to contend that the Kendra that is now approved in favour of the 1st respondent is at a distance of less than one kilometer. It would have been an altogether different circumstance if the petitioner's Kendra was already in existence and another Kendra in 500 meters or less than one kilometer had emerged.”

Thus it held “The petition which is structured on the edifice of an inchoate right is structured on quicksand as it does not bear any legal foundation. No fault can be found with the approval granted to the 1st respondent as the defence put up by respondents 2 and 3, as quoted herein above, is acceptable.”

Dismissing the petition it said, “No illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness is discernable from the grant of approval to the 1st respondent, to iterate public interest would be ill-served if this Court were to interdict a lawful and beneficial initiative on such slender grounds.”

Case Title: Savinaya AND Mrs Sheela G Bhat & Others

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate R. Bhadrinath

Counsel for R1: Advocate M.Sudhakar Pai

Counsel for R2 and R3 DSGI H Shanthi Bhushan 

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 181

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13685 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order