Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Savinaya, operated a Janaushadhi Kendra under the Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) in Dakshina Kannada district. She challenged a communication dated 02-04-2024 issued by respondent No.3 (Assistant Manager, PMBJP) which declined her request to cancel the final approval and store code granted to respondent No.1, Mrs. Sheela G. Bhat, for establishing another Janaushadhi Kendra in the same area. The petitioner contended that the approval violated PMBJP guidelines which allegedly prohibited the establishment of a new Kendra within 500 meters of an existing one. The respondents argued that the guidelines only restricted the distance between two existing Kendras, not between a proposed Kendra and an existing one. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing arguments, held that the guidelines did not impose a distance restriction between a proposed Kendra and an existing one. The court found that the impugned communication was valid and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the approval granted to respondent No.1.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana - Distance Restriction - Guidelines - The petitioner sought cancellation of approval granted to respondent No.1 for a Janaushadhi Kendra on the ground that it was within 500 meters of her own Kendra. The Court held that the guidelines only restrict the distance between two existing Kendras, not between a proposed Kendra and an existing one. The impugned communication declining cancellation was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - The Court examined whether the petitioner had locus to challenge the approval. It was held that the petitioner, being an existing Kendra operator, had sufficient interest to seek enforcement of guidelines. However, on merits, the challenge failed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned communication dated 02-04-2024 declining the petitioner's request to cancel the final approval granted to respondent No.1 for establishment of a Janaushadhi Kendra is valid and whether the distance restriction under the PMBJP guidelines applies between two existing Kendras or between a proposed Kendra and an existing one.
Final Decision
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned communication dated 02-04-2024 and the approval granted to respondent No.1.
Law Points
- Interpretation of guidelines
- Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana
- distance restriction
- locus standi
- cancellation of approval
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (04) 54
Writ Petition No.13685 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Sri R. Bhadrinath (for petitioner), Sri M. Sudhakar Pai (for R1), Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI (for R2 and R3)
Mrs. Sheela G. Bhat, The Deputy General Manager, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Bureau of India (PMBI), Assistant Manager, Head Quarter Hubballi, Karnataka, Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a communication declining cancellation of approval for a Janaushadhi Kendra.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order/letter dated 02-04-2024 and direction to respondents to cancel the final approval and store code granted in favor of respondent No.1.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the approval granted to respondent No.1 for a Janaushadhi Kendra violated PMBJP guidelines as it was within 500 meters of her existing Kendra.
Issues
Whether the impugned communication dated 02-04-2024 declining the petitioner's request to cancel the final approval granted to respondent No.1 is valid.
Whether the distance restriction under PMBJP guidelines applies between two existing Kendras or between a proposed Kendra and an existing one.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the approval violated PMBJP guidelines which prohibit establishment of a new Kendra within 500 meters of an existing one.
Respondents contended that the guidelines only restrict distance between two existing Kendras, not between a proposed Kendra and an existing one.
Ratio Decidendi
The guidelines under the Pradhan Mantri Bharatiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana do not impose a distance restriction between a proposed Kendra and an existing one; they only restrict the distance between two existing Kendras. Therefore, the approval granted to respondent No.1 was valid and the petitioner's challenge failed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a communication dated 02-04-2024 through which the claim of the petitioner to cancel the final approval granted in favour of the 1st respondent for establishment and business of Janaushadhi Kendra under the Pradhan Mantri BharatiyaJanaushadi Kendra is declined.
Heard Sri R. Bhadrinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date, heard and reserved for orders on 18.03.2025, and pronounced on 29.04.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
