Price control recovery under the Drugs Price Control Order sustained despite dealer classification dispute.

Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 permits recovery of amounts charged in excess of the notified price from manufacturers, importers and distributors, and the overlapping definitions of dealer, distributor and wholesaler are not mutually exclusive. On the admitted and proved facts, the appellant's own replies indicated purchase of the drug from the manufacturer, and its position on the source and nature of dealings remained inconsistent. In that setting, it could not avoid recovery merely by describing itself as a dealer rather than a distributor. The provision was given a practical, price-control oriented construction, and the demand for recovery of the overcharged amount and interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, on the facts admitted and proved, fell within the ambit of Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 so as to sustain recovery of the overcharged amount and interest demanded by the NPPA.

Analysis: Paragraph 13 empowers recovery of amounts charged in excess of the notified price from manufacturers, importers, or distributors. The definitions of dealer, distributor, and wholesaler in the DPCO overlap and are not mutually exclusive. The appellant's own replies showed purchase of the drug from the manufacturer, and its factual stand remained inconsistent as to the source and nature of its dealings. In that backdrop, the appellant could not successfully claim exclusion from Paragraph 13 merely by describing itself as a dealer and not a distributor. The object of the provision is price control and recovery of excess amounts from those involved in the marketing chain, and it warranted a practical rather than a narrow construction.

Conclusion: The appellant was amenable to recovery under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, and the challenge to the demand failed.

---