or through any other mode of dissemination of information of the launch of drugs, the precise object with which such charges are paid by pharmaceutical companies and collected by the association. It seems to be a classic case where despite, receipt of no services, the pharmaceutical companies are continuing to pay to CCDA and do not appear to be bothered about actual publication of information in the bulletin. Going a step further, even assuming that publication in the bulletin has stopped and dissemination is done through messages/WhatsApp, it is a little curious as to why any charges are payable for an electronic dissemination, which is low-cost compared to the publication in the bulletin. Nevertheless, since it has come on record that PIS is not a hindrance towards the launch of new products in the state, and no product launch has been held up for want of PIS, the Commission is inclined to give benefit of doubt to CCDA in this regard. The Commission notes that, except for Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, the pharma companies before the DG submitted that the payment of PIS was voluntary. As discussed earlier, it is pertinent to note that Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, despite stating that PIS payment was mandated, also stated that there has been no instance when their product launch was not allowed by CCDA for want of payment of PIS and there have been instances where PIS is paid after the launch of the product. Thus, from the replies of pharmaceutical companies, it appears that the payment of PIS charges was made voluntarily by them and was not mandatory. Consequently, the Commission holds that it is not conclusively established that CCDA has mandated payment of PIS.
