TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent 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, 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 exemption of the customs duty. The first respondent has not considered the case of the appellants or not even discussed the materials placed by the appellants before it. The first respondent being the quasi judicial authority was duty bound to consider the materials placed before it in its proper perspective and should have passed a speaking order assigning the reasons - the first respondent has failed to do so in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (i) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. When the matter stood thus, all of a sudden, there were claims disallowing the customs duty. The exemption granted from the customs duty has been taken of and appellant and other institutions were proceeded by the customs authority. The same was challenged before the court and matter ultimately got decided in Writ Appeal No.2378-79/1999. The relevant paragraphs which are para Nos. 8, 9, 10 reads as under: 8. The said W.P.No.28186-87/96 (GM.CUS) along with the aforesaid W.P.No.7730/1998, W.P.No.28589/1998, and W.P.No.29130/1998 and also a few other writ petitions, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 11.02.99, copy of which order is produced herewith as Annexure-Q to the W.P. respectively. 9. That being aggrieved by the common final order dated 11.02.99 at Annexure Q, passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred W.A.No.2378-79/1999 on the file of this Honourable Court. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Respondent No.3, vide order Z.37021/2/99-MG dated 05.05.1999, drawing attention to the earlier order No.Z.37021/18/93-MG(ptI) dated 29.10.97, informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs taken place by the respondent till the year 2014. It is only for the first time, an informal meeting was held in the office of the Director General of Health Services, wherein, the appellant and twenty-two (22) other institutions participated. Time was granted to substantiate the cases of the appellant and others and in pursuance of the same, the appellant has furnished as many as 200 documents to the respondent wherein, they have substantiated that they have followed all the eight conditions which were discussed in the order of the Writ Appeal and therefore, the Order that has been passed by the respondent is incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal. He also contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the case of the appellant in right perspective especially when the impugned Order passed by the respondent which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge was not a speaking order and thus sought for remand of the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, Smt. S.K. Sarojini Muthanna, learned Central Government counsel representing for the respondents 1 to 4 argued that none of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical and diagnostic procedures, besides boarding and lodging, to the concerned patient. The original notification depicted such free treatment only for 10% of the inpatients. The instant enhancement to cover 20% of all annual inpatients, is on account of the fact, that it has been considered appropriate to do away with free outpatients treatment, since it is virtually impossible to verify records for such large number of patients, not only on the issue of their eligibility (under the original scheme), but also in respect of treatment rendered. In case of a shortfall in a particular year, the principle of carry-forward will be adopted, to provide free medical treatment to BPL card-holders, for the following years (including the years after the expiry of the period of 20 years), till the short fall is satisfied. In case, any of the hospitals have sister/peripheral hospital(s), it shall be open to such hospitals to satisfy the obligation of 20% free inpatient treatment, by providing medical treatment in any of their sister/peripheral hospital(s). Secondly , the original notification dated 01.03.1988 envisaged free treatment only for persons whose family income was less then & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, pertaining to a period of one year preceding the inspection in question . 11. Bare reading of the above clearly indicate that the first respondent has not considered the case of the appellants or not even discussed the materials placed by the appellants before it. The first respondent being the quasi judicial authority was duty bound to consider the materials placed before it in its proper perspective and should have passed a speaking order assigning the reasons. 12. The first respondent has failed to do so in the case on hand. Suffice to say that in the absence of considering the case of the appellant in its proper perspective by discussing the materials placed by it and assigned reasons, reached a conclusion has resulted in miscarriage of justice which has not been properly adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the first respondent. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER The Writ Appeals are allowed. The Order dated 4.1.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.13285/2015 (T-TAR) c/w. Writ Petition No.12122/2015 (T-RES) is hereby set aside and we remit the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
