Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURTInterpretation of statute - paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission (NAM) - Constitutional Validity of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution - purchase of Ayurvedic drugs solely from IMPCL without inviting tenders - requirement in view of paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission, that the State of Uttar Pradesh must purchase Ayurvedic medicines by adopting a transparent process after inviting tenders - violation of the operating guidelines - no involvement of ‘State largesse’ and no disposal of State property. HELD THAT:- Paragraph 4(vi)(b) does not stipulate that IMPCL will have a higher standing as compared to other manufacturing units of the State Governments and cooperatives mentioned in the paragraph. The position of the Ministry of AYUSH as evidenced by the 2019 notification is that 50 percent of the grant-in-aid shall be used to procure medicines from any of the establishments specified in the paragraph. This conclusion is substantiated by the use of the phrase ‘or’ in paragraph 4(vi)(b) - IMPCL ‘or’ from PSUs’, pharmacies under State Governments and co-operatives. Thus, on a plain reading of paragraph 4(vi)(b), it is evident that all the units mentioned in the paragraph are placed at an equal footing. The provision does not create a gradation amongst the manufacturing units mentioned in the paragraph. Nor does it evince an intent to create a monopoly. Validity of award of government contract to IMPCL - HELD THAT:- There is no material on record to support the submission that IMPCL is the only establishment among the establishments mentioned in paragraph 4(vi)(a) that manufacture good quality Ayurvedic drugs. In fact, paragraph 4(vi)(b) states that 50 percent of the grant-in-aid shall be used to purchase medicines from the units mentioned in the paragraph “keeping in view the need for ensuring quality of AYUSH drugs and medicines.” This would indicate that the need for ensuring quality is subserved by all the sources mentioned there. Besides IMPCL, which is an establishment of the Government of India, paragraph 4(vi)(b) includes other establishments of the State Governments or co-operative societies - The contention that IMPCL does not have any commercial interest because it is an establishment developed by the Government of India is then equally applicable to other establishments prescribed in paragraph 4(vi)(b). Inviting tenders from the entities mentioned in paragraph 4(vi)(b) is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken. Hence, the appellant must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders. The appellant may deviate from this rule and procure medicines by nomination only if exceptional circumstances exist. In such a situation, the appellant must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of cogent material. The intervention applications seek to enlarge the scope of the Special Leave Petition. The issue before this Court falls squarely on the interpretation of paragraph 4(vi)(b). However, the intervention applicant has prayed that in accordance with the policies of the State and the Central Government, a minimum percent of Ayurvedic drugs must be procured from MSMEs under paragraph 4(vi)(c). This is beyond the scope of the instant Special Leave Petition. SLP dismissed.
|