The court upheld the validity of policy guidelines for 'Jan Aushadhi' shops permitting multiple establishments under specified conditions.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 12.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.42741/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents to cancel the allotment of store code 16071 by the 1^st respondent to the 3^rd respondent to open a PMBJK store;

ii. Direct the respondents to conduct proper market survey prior to licensing new PMBJK shops as Ext.P1 guidelines is not an empty formality.

iii. Direct the 1^st respondent to withdraw the approval granted to the 3^rd respondent, if on a properly conducted market survey, the opening of a new PMBJK store at 3^rd respondents place is not recommended as feasible.

iv. To dispense with the production of English translation of documents in vernacular language.”

2.1. The appellant is running a medical shop popularly known as ‘Jan Aushadhi’ at Vandanam near Alappuzha Medical College from the year 2017 under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP). The said shop was opened with the object of promoting sale of unbranded generic medicine which are sold at significantly lower price than branded generic medicines. The appellant after toiling for more than 5 years, could reach the breakeven and recently the store has started making profit.

2.2. The grievance of the appellant is that sanction has been granted to the 3^rd respondent for opening another Jan Aushadhi medical shop without following the policy and examining the scope of viability of location after conducting market survey. Being aggrieved, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that, a close scrutiny of the guidelines reveal that the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra (PMBJK’s) are introduced to make high quality generic medicines available at affordable rates. As far as the distance policy is concerned, it is to be noted that the minimum distance of 1 km is not applicable if the Jan Aushadhi is situated within 500 mtrs of the Medical colleges. The report contains all necessary factors and the permission to open the new store has been granted strictly in accordance with the policy. The Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

Appellant’s Contentions:-

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the Writ Petition without properly considering the mandatory provisions of Ext.P1 guidelines. Unrestricted granting of illegitimate licenses to open PMBJK would kill the said business which is against public interest. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge fell into grave error by being unduly swayed away by the objectives of the PMBJK Scheme thereby non-suiting the Appellant without due regard to these fundamental principles. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Calcutta High Court Judgment in the case of Pinaki Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 23174/2024, which unequivocally reiterates the sacrosanct nature of the guidelines, prohibiting any deviation therefrom even on grounds of potential business loss to existing licensees. Adherence to this binding exposition mandates interference with the impugned order. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to allow Writ Appeal and cancel the license granted to the new store.

Respondent’s Contentions:-

4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel, Sri.T.V.Vinu opposed the prayer and submitted that the permission to open a second shop can always be grant