Eviction of Pharmacy Shops in Hospital Premises: Supreme Court’s Balanced Approach

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 27, 2018, examined the issue of pharmacy shops operating within hospital premises on leased government land. The case, Bharmal Medical Store & Apna Medicaze vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, involved a dispute over the eviction of private medical shops within the compound of government hospitals to facilitate a government scheme for free medicine distribution.

The primary question before the Court was whether the government’s decision to evict these medical stores violated the rights of the shop owners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or trade. The Court had to balance the government’s objective of providing free medicine against the livelihood rights of the medical shop owners.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants argued that the eviction notice was arbitrary as they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. They contended that their right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) was being infringed without due process. The petitioners also stated that the presence of private medical shops would complement rather than hinder the government’s initiative of free medicine distribution.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh defended the eviction by asserting that the pharmacy shops were initially permitted at a time when patients had to buy their own medicines. However, under the newly introduced Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nishulka Aushadhi Vitaran Yojna, the government was supplying essential drugs for free. The presence of private pharmacy shops inside hospital premises was no longer necessary, and their space could be better utilized for government operations.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court carefully considered both sides and made the following key observations:

“The laudable objective of the Government to ensure availability of free medicines to the patients in the civil hospital premises will have to be balanced with the competing interests of the appellants to earn their livelihood. If peaceful coexistence is possible, there is no reason why the shop premises should be shut down and the appellants be asked to vacate.”

The Court noted that the government itself had acknowledged the presence of numerous private medical stores outside the hospital premises, implying that private pharmacies were still necessary for patient convenience. The Court also emphasized that the eviction notices were issued without providing the shop owners an opportunity to present their case.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that the eviction notices could not be sustained as they violated due process. However, it also clarified that the shop leases had long expired, and the owners had no automatic right to continue operations indefinitely. The Court provided a fair solution:

• The government was directed to hold an open bidding process for the pharmacy shops inside the hospital premises.
• The petitioners were allowed to participate in the bidding.
• Until the new bids were conducted, the petitioners could continue operating their shops but had to pay enhanced rent as per their original lease agreement.
• The Court acknowledged that the government had the discretion to close the shops in the future if justified reasons arose.

Conclusion

The ruling in Bharmal Medical Store & Apna Medicaze vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reflects the judiciary’s balanced approach in addressing conflicts between economic rights and public welfare policies. While supporting the government’s free medicine initiative, the Court ensured that private pharmacy owners were not evicted unfairly. The judgment reinforced the importance of due process and transparency in policy implementation, ensuring that business owners were given a fair chance to continue their trade through a competitive bidding process.

Petitioner Name: Bharmal Medical Store & Apna Medicaze.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh, India.
Judgment Date: 27-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bharmal Medical Stor vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-08-2018.pdf