TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icature at Bombay in CWP No. 2613 of 2004 dated 17th December, 2004 whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 4. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP) No.17577 is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition No.5594/2006. 5. The latter case has been dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the findings recorded in the order dated 17 th of December, 2004 passed in WP No.2613/2004 M/s. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India Ors. 6. As the point involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are taken up for disposal together by this common Judgment. 7. For the convenience of reference, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to patients other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b)." 9. The said CDECs were cancelled/withdrawn by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) vide its communication bearing No. Z.37024/13/92-MG dated 14 th November, 2000 addressed to the Chief Executive Director of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant-hospital had failed to comply with the conditions laid down in para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification extracted above. 10. After about three years, the appellant made a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 24th September, 2003, seeking categorization under para 1 (extracted below) instead of para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification. "1. organization ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case only under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification which, inter alia, stipulates that the hospital has to provide free treatment to 40 per cent of the outdoor patients and to all indoor patients whose income is less than Rs.500/- per month. 15. The High Court, by the impugned order, has upheld the order passed by the DGHS. It has been held that the order passed by the DGHS is not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. That the appellant could not claim change in the categorization after having enjoyed the benefit under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification for about fifteen years. During the said period of fifteen years, the appellant did not raise any grievance with regard to its non-categorizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits. Grant of exemption under category 2 of the notification or withdrawal of the said benefit cannot come in the way of the applicant in claiming exemption under category 3 if the conditions laid down thereunder have been fulfilled. The High Court also committed the same error and hence the order of the High Court also suffers from the same infirmity and is liable to be set aside." 17. Without going into the question regarding applicability or otherwise of the decision referred to above, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought for. The appellant had given up its challenge to the communication dated 14th November, 2000 cancelling/withdrawing the CDECs issued to the appellant for having violated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
