Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard Mr. V. Shreedharan the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.A. Desai, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.

2. The petitioner obtained Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) for import of various hospital equipments under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The CDECs certified the petitioner covered by the para 2 of the hospitals specified in the table annexed to the Ministry of Finance notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 13-1-1988. The said CDECs were cancelled/withdrawn by the Director General of Health Services on 14-11-2000 on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions of para 2(b) of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner then made a representation to the Minister of Health and Welfare on 24-9-2003 for categorisation of the petitioner under para 1 of the table of the said notification. The said representation came to be rejected by the Director General of Health Services vide order dated 18-3-2004. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-11-2000 cancelling/withdrawing CDECs and the order dated 18-3-2004 declining to categorise the petitioner under para 1 of the table of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. However, during the course of motion hearing, the learned Counsel did not press the prayer for setting aside the order dated 14-11-2000 and confined the challenge to the order dated 18-3-2004.

4. The CDECs issued to the petitioner relate to the import of medical equipments for the period from the years 1988 to 1994. All along, until 2003, the petitioner accepted and was rather satisfied of it being categorised under para 2 of the table to the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. It is only after the said CDECs were withdrawn/cancelled by order dated 14-11-2000 and almost three years thereafter that representation came to be made by the petitioner to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare that it be categorised under para 1 of the table to the Notification No. 64/88-Cus. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not raise any contention about the order dated 14-11-2000 withdrawing/cancelling that CDECs which were obtained by the petitioner on the footing that it fulfilled the conditions of para 2 of table 2 of the aforesaid notification, we assume the correctness of the order dated 14-11-2000. Almost after 15 years of the petitioner having been categorised under para 2 of table 2 of the said notification that the petitioner made a representation for its categorisation under para 1 of table 2 of the said notification. The Director General of Health Services rejected the petitioner's representation on the following grounds:

Once a beneficiary under category 2 of 64/88 Notification, the Mediwell judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is a continuing obligation on the part of the beneficiaries to fulfill the conditions based on which the eligibility of the institution was assessed. Since the institution failed to substantiate fulfillment of the conditions the CDEC's issued under 64/88-Cus. Notification were withdrawn.

5. We hardly find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18-3-2004 declining to recategorise the petitioner under para 1 of the table to the notification afore-referred. The State Government recommended the petitioner under para 2 wherein it was certified that the hospital has provided free treatment to 40% of its OPD patients and that all indoor patients were treated free whose income was less than Rs. 500/- per month. The reasons assigned by the Director General of Health Services cannot be said to be irrelevant or superfluous for declining the petitioner's prayer for recategorisation under para 1 of the table of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. after 15 years of the petitioner having been categorised under para 2 of the table of the said notification. The fact remains that from the years 1988 to 1994 when the CDECs were issued until the representation was made on 24th September, 2003, at no point of time, the petitioner had any grievance for its non-categorisation under para 1 of the table of the said notification and its categorisation under para 2.

7. The contention raised by the petitioner that the application for categorisation under para 1 of the table of the aforesaid could be made at any time is noted to be rejected. The petitioner by its conduct has disentitled itself from contending that it should be categorised under para 1 of the table of the aforesaid notification. The application made by the petitioner for CDECs under Notification 64/83-Cus. was considered and granted under para 2 of the table of the said notification and the said categorisation was accepted by the petitioner. It is too late in the day after the petitioner accepted the CDECs granted under para 2 of the table of the notification from the years 1988 to 1994 to contend in the year 2003 after the CDECs were withdrawn for non-fulfilment of the conditions of para 2 of the table that it be re-categorised under para 1 of the table of the said notification.