9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Writ Petition NO.12122/2015 (T-RES) [The Kasturba Medical College and another. Vs. The Union of India and six others] 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The appellants in these appeals, who are the petitioners in the aforementioned Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Deputy Director General (Medical) in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, revoking the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) issued in favour of the petitioner-Hospitals under the Notification No.64/88-Cus. Dated 1.3.1988 for import of certain medical equipments exempt from customs duty. 3. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.1137/2018 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The objectives of the appellant is to provide medical relief to the poor and the general public, irrespective of their caste, creed, race, community, religion, sex and language, and has established a hospital called "Manipal Hospital" at Old Airport Road, Bengaluru, which is a super speciality hospital owned, controlled and managed by the appellant and in the course of business, the appellant has been importing equip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order at Annexure R, the customs duty exemption certificate issued to the Appellant on various dates, details of which have been indicated from Sl.No.58 to 63 of Annexure K also stood to be cancelled. 10. Manipal Hospital along with the Appellant thereafter filed a writ Petition No.24539/99 which came to be referred to the Division Bench, wherein the order No. Z-37021/2/90-MG dated 13.05.1999 issued by Respondent No.3 rejecting the applications for customs duty exemption certificates listed in the Annexure to the said order was prayed to be quashed and a writ of mandamus sought directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to consider the applications afresh." 5. After passing the said order, the appellant and other institutions did not file any affidavit in pursuance of the Order passed in the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, the concerned department also did not take any action in the year 2014 though there was a meeting in the office of the DGHS. Further, an opportunity was granted to furnish the details in terms of the Order passed. Since the appellant did not choose to file an affidavit in terms of the Order passed in Sir Gangaram Trust Society and another Vs. Union of India and Others by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangaram Trust's Case in Civil Appeal No.7284/2005 dated 24.10.2007? " 9. A plain reading of the Order passed by the first respondent clearly shows that proper opportunity has not been granted by the first respondent to the appellants in considering their case. 10. The documents which were furnished by the appellants to the first respondent before this court, which are annexed to the Appeal Memorandum running approximately 200 documents have not been mentioned in the Order passed by the first respondent, let alone being considered or discussed. The Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangaram's case clearly mentioned that the first respondent was duty bound to consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law. Further, the first respondent was a party before this court in Writ Appeal. When this court has clearly passed an order referred to supra, it was for the first respondent to consider the case of the appellant judiciously by affording opportunity for the appellant to establish that they have complied with all the eight conditions and therefore, they were entitled for the exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal treatment, reference shall be made to the total inpatients treated at the hospital during the preceding year; 20% thereof shall constitute the number of patients who would be entitled to free treatment in the year in question. The same principle will be adopted annually, in each succeeding year. Wherever, there is an expected shortfall in a particular year, it shall be open to the hospital(s) in question to require government hospitals, to refer BPL card-holders, for free inpatient treatment. Fourthly, hospitals seeking the benefit of the proposed modified scheme, would announce through notices affixed at prominent places at the hospital, the facility of such free medical inpatient benefits, to persons who possess BPL cards. Due publicity shall also be provided on 'Prasar Bharathi' by respondent No.1. Simultaneously, press releases shall be issued by the State of Karnataka, periodically informing the general public of the free medical inpatient facility, available at the hospitals in question. Fifthly, all hospitals concerned shall maintain complete records and details, to identify the beneficiaries under the modified scheme, as also, the details of the treatment r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
