Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: CDEC in Manipal Hospital And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 July, 2011Matching Fragments
gm A ' $6
-r 'e ic Co-- a e - n1 1 35 This Hospital \ has filed ;writ. Petition Noe.28019 and 28105/1996 for a mandamdedidireotine the Respondents to consider the aooiioetione For 'the grant of Exemption Certifioatee" in. regard "to"; imports made by it.
September, '_ 1996' ieeaued i'--_ l:'$'y ' ° Agzeieiant Commiseioner of rCustGneg'Mangaiore}nherebr a hond furniehed Vby the petitioner wee"=eodght to be enforced againet tit *hee} ei$od;been.aseailed. in w.P;No.7483/1993"~tn?s"wfi9e§i?ii§"has question dtheV:Qeliditfiiot"*order dated 12th of Septenher}JWii99?{}iirefieeting the petitioners' aoolioationek for vthe grant of CDECs in connection with the imports reierred to in the Annexure to the said order} Reimendamue directing the Respondente ;to_ consider' the applications of the petitioner VV afresh has $155 been prayed for.
is?
is that statistical information is circulated among the staff members and_the public in the information §brochur which' is in the light ef the decision of the Supreme Court in Mediwelle' case V"not a» euffieient compliance 'with the *eentinuing obligation caet upon such hoepitale_5iniubfouiding Kgetutbemmedigeligglleeeiumenee;gteif writ Petit'izen.A :--No?.§»7":%f3'1V9f~1:}§'*:§3 'filed by this College challenges the ueiiditQe§fL¢fi order deted 13th of uetQber.i99?eieeued by the Director General1 of Health s§rQ1§ee§'Queieb3 the petitioner was held dieentitied£§9--theriseuewot the CDECS in reepect of the eauibMente'mentioned in the Annexure to' the order, » 'In "writ*i?etitioni No.29115/1998 , the pet;tiener hes bailed in queetion the validity to?
- en; order Kdeted 20th of August 1998, whereby CDECe i*5eeued in its favour and detailed int the Annexure ',acebw§an§ing the order have been withdrawn on the irgrcund"that the petitioner was not eligible For the uLeame} There is no material difference either in the background in which the writ Petitions have been filed or the ground on which the CDECs have been refused by the reeecndente. The request fer ethe grant of exemption certificatee wae coneidered and turned down by the CDECe Committee in 'its;;¢éét:fie°» held on 22nd of July 1997. The matter wee ewaminbdu further -in the Committees meeting held_enw2ietTef August 1997, in which the fiommittee reiterated: its ; earlier view. The rejection order ieeued on 13th of October 1997 inter a1ia'jpeinte eut "that the College was not previdingitree treatment to 40% of the OPE) patient__e. /'fhe states that the informetienipreuided deee net state whether the free treatment 'g§§§fi;"by ithe lHoepital was to patiente Wwithi a de§m11§w income of leee than Re.5dQ/eer'mcnthf'_l rIn the,broferma furniehed by the College on V'_2nd 2ef_"epril 1993, the College has described the wxfacilitieefieervicee provided to free 090 patients 'in the tellowing worde=~ "All patients are given consultation, examination and advice Free of cost. In caee various investigations like laboratory, xwraye etc. are ,required, nominal charges are levied. Medicines r9 L have to be ' purchased, while the prescription by Doctor would be free of cost. In case of poor batiente who are unable to pay, even investigation charges are made free hand they are helped with drugs free of cost, as far as poeeible.".~ It would appear from the above that the Colleee "
.hH&;m§LHoewital and Reeearoh Centre, Bangelore This Hospital hae in HP No.3010/98 aeeailed the. validity of order dated 12th of December 1997 ieeued- bye the Directorate General of Health Servieee refusing to ieeue the installation certificateex and reveking the CDECS already granted in its faheur en the ground that the Hospital does not eatiefej thee requirements of the exemetion notiticationif A demandv notice issued by the eeeietantAltémmleeienerflxef Cuetome. asking the rHoepital to aeay :aul"eumg"a§F, Rel86,15,252.44 towards cueteme duty--pagahle on thed medical equipment imported :by Hlt has, afeo been challenged beeidee Vafif order "dated 22nd of January 1998 ieeued bx_ the Wfiuperlntendent clef Customs, Bangalore detainlng the eah1pfié5t.;fi question for non payment of:" above. In up No.14643/19§8 thie.Heeplta1*hae challenged the order made §py_ the Jéeeietant_'dommieeioner of 'Customs, Chennai eenrirnine a degtaa 'of Re.14,53,564/b under $ec.28Q2) are the ttuetome Act, 1962 consequent upon J"atheeeet@tiener'e failure to produce an inetallation T eertififiateg and the revocation of the CDECe granted in ite favour,"