2. The brief facts of the case are that the
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 1st respondent to withdraw the approval
granted to the 3rd respondent, if on a properly
conducted market survey, the opening of a new
PMBJK store at 3rd respondents place is not
recommended as feasible.
2026:KER:17391
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 3rd 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
2026:KER:17391
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
2026:KER:17391
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 granted subject
2026:KER:17391
to the fulfillment of the requirements as laid down in the policy.
The respondents have scrupulously followed Clause V of Exhibit
P1 (PMBI Guidelines). As per Clause V(d)(ii) of Exhibit P1 (PMBI
Guidelines) there is distance policy restrictions to be observed in
surrounding area upto 500 mtrs from District Government
Hospitals and the Private hospitals having 100 and more beds or
Hospitals attached or associated with Medical Colleges. The
policy further provides that location and number of kendras
shall be determined by the PMBI after examining the scope of
viability of locations after market survey.
4.1. Accordingly, a market survey was conducted and
based on the report, proposal for New Store Allocation at
Government T.D.Medical College, Alappuzha was sanctioned.
The learned counsel further contended that, according to the
Market Survey Report, it highlights the potential for allocating a
new Jan Aushadhi medical store. Considering the high patient
influx, the significant population relying on the hospital, and the
2026:KER:17391
limited number of nearby affordable medical options,
establishing an additional Jan Aushadhi store would enhance
accessibility and benefit to the community at large. As a result,
opening of additional store was recommended for the said
allocation. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents have not
violated any of the conditions of the policy. The learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. No interference is
called for. Thus the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Discussion & Analysis:-
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
6. According to the Ext.P1 (PMBI) Policy, more than one
shops can be permitted to be opened within a radius of 500
metres from the Medical College. A proper and detailed survey
has been conducted and the scope of viability of location has
also been examined. According to the report, there is a great
market potential for sale of generic medicines near the medical
2026:KER:17391
college. In such event, no fault can be found with the permission
granted to open the second store.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the Writ
Petition. The present Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and
substance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters
stand closed.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Nsd
2026:KER:17391
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 3163 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBER
PMBI/MKT/2025-261 DATED 10.09.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR PMBI/MKT/2025-
26/266 DATED 17.11.2025
