HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for short) is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 27/2/2019 by which the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers in the Department of Pharmaceuticals imposes a cap on trade margin of 30% and directs manufacturers to fix their retail price based on price at first point of sale of the product of non-scheduled formulations containing in all those 42 drugs listed in the said order. 3

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief that are germane for consideration, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the largest provider of cancer care and is in the forefront of the battle against cancer and claims to have 20 comprehensive cancer care centers across the nation. The petitioner further claims that it has been successfully able to provide innovate and cost-effective methods of treatment and management of cancer. It operates a hub and spoke model and has been acclaimed of both commitment and quality of health care. The petitioner fits into the definition of retailer in any of the enactments that are necessary to be considered in the case at hand. The issue that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is the order of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers in the Department of Pharmaceuticals at the National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority imposing a cap of 30% upon manufacturers for select anti cancer drugs identified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as being essential for the treatment of cancer invoking its power under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, the policy to keep the margin to a maximum extent of 30% to the 4 manufacturers is what is promulgated under the Notification. The petitioner, a retailer who runs cancer care centers and deals with these medicines which are used to combat cancer rushes to this Court once the Notification comes about on 27/2/2019 contending that the petitioner being a stockist, the cap laid on the manufacturer would result in his business getting affected inter alia. This Court declined to grant an interim order of stay of any kind of the order impugned but by a detailed order noticed that in the event the petitioner succeeds, his interest would be protected.

(3.) Heard Sri Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.B.Nargund, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.