The court upheld the first-come-first-served principle and distance policy in public welfare schemes, emphasizing broader public benefit over individual claims in the context of the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana.

Headnote:(A) Articles 226 of the Constitution of India - Public Welfare Schemes - The Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana aims to establish affordable and accessible generic medicine across India. The petitioner seeks to quash the approval granted to the first respondent for a Janaushadhi Kendra, alleging violation of the distance policy between approved Kendras. While the petitioner received in-principle approval, final approval was correctly granted to the first respondent based on a first-come-first-served basis under the policy. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Distribution of Public Goods - The court must consider the broader public interest and the welfare-oriented objective of the Scheme, focusing not on individual grievances but on community benefit. The absence of existing rights for the petitioner due to mere initial approval does not warrant intervention. (Paras 5, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a Janaushadhi Kendra, receiving in-principle approval, whereas the first respondent’s application was processed faster and granted final approval for establishment. The petitioner contends that the distance policy was violated by situating the first respondent's Kendra too close to her proposed site despite having validity in her application.

Findings of Court:
The court found no procedural infirmities in the approval process and determined the petitioner's application did not confer any rights as it lacked final approval. The first respondent's approval stands valid under the policy guidelines of establishing Kendras.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around adherence to the distance policy in the establishment of Janaushadhi Kendras and whether the approval to the first respondent violated any legal standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of a conclusive and valid claim from the petitioner, as her application was left unfinalized, the approval process is lawful and must not be disturbed, affirming the Scheme's altruistic goal of broad-based public benefit.

Result: Petition dismissed.

CAV ORDER

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 1^st respondent for establishment and business of Janaushadhi Kendra under the Pradhan Mantri BharatiyaJanaushadi Kendra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Kendra’ for short), is declined.

2. 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.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The Government of India,recognizing the harsh economic reality that renders essential medicines inaccessible to large segment of the population due to prohibitive costs, conceived the establishment of the Kendra in terms of deliberations of the Committee constituted for the said purpose in the year 2008.

Though it was conceived in the year 2008, it remained only on paper. It has now recently come to life by strengthening establishment of Kendras in all the rural areas. The Kendras were to become beacons of affordable quality generic medicine across the nation. Therefore, the proposal emerges that at least one Kendra should be established in 734 Districts in the Country. It is then the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya JanaushadhiPariyojana is ushered in. After the aforesaid Pariyojana has been brought into effect, applications are called for setting up of Kendras from the hands of interested and eligible persons. The subject matter of the present petition concerns establishment of a Kendra in KumbraVillage, PutturTalulk, Dakshina Kannada District. Pursuant to the notification issued for the purpose of establishment of Kendra, both the petitioner and the 1^st respondent apply for grant of licence/allotment in their respective favour. The petitioner is said to have made an application on 20-11-2023 for opening of the Kendra under the category of women entrepreneur at the aforesaid location. For the purpose of establishment of a Kendra, it appears, that the petitioner had also identified a place of business on the ground floor of particular building where the Primary Agricultural Bank Private Limited was situated.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the application, it appears, that in- principle approval was granted in favour of the petitioner and was asked to furnish all the necessary documents. The petitioner is said to have furnished all the required documents and placed a request for generating a store-code by granting final approval. The store- code and approval did not come about. The petitioner then learns that the 1^st respondent who had also filed an application along with the petitioner was granted approval and store-code and, therefore, the petitioner now calls in question the action of granting approval in favour of the 2^nd respondent, second in line and according to the petitioner it was in violation of the policy of establishment of a Kendra. The petitioner then is said to have submitted several representations to cancel the store-code and approval granted to the 1^st respondent. Since representations go unheeded, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court seeking the following prayers:

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order/letter dated 2-04-2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A and further direct the respondents to cancel the final approval and store code granted in favour of the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant final approval and issue store code pursuant to the principle approval order dated 11-12-2023 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-D.

(c) Declare that approval order dated 20-12-2023 granted in favour of respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-E is null and void.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating aforesaid prayers would submit by taking th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document