Such a change companyld only be possible if the appellant had applied for change of its categorization before the issuance of the companymunication of the DGHS dated 14th November, 2000 withdrawing cancelling the CDECs.
Till the year 2003, the appellant accepted and was rather satisfied of its being categorized under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
Against the rejection of its aforesaid representation, the appellant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court, challenging the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000 issued by the DGHS, canceling withdrawing the CDECs granted to the appellant, and the order dated 18th March, 2004, declining to categorize the appellant under para 1 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
Without going into the question regarding applicability or otherwise of the decision referred to above, we are of the view that the appellant is number entitled to the relief sought for.
The appellant had given up its challenge to the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000 cancelling withdrawing the CDECs issued to the appellant for having violated the companyditions laid down for grant of exemption.
The representation made by the appellant after a lapse of three years of the cancellation withdrawal of the CDECs cannot be entertained, as the change of its category would number arise as the appellants categorization under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification had already been withdrawn.
It was only after the withdrawal cancellation of the said CDECs by the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000 and, that too, after a lapse of almost three years, that the appellant made a representation to the Secretary to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for being categorized under para 1 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
The latter case has been dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the findings recorded in the order dated 17th of December, 2004 passed in WP No.2613/2004 M s. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India Ors.
As the point involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are taken up for disposal together by this companymon Judgment.
During the companyrse of hearing before the High Court, Counsel for the appellant did number press the prayer for setting aside the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000 and companyfined the challenge only to the order dated 18th March, 2004 passed by the DGHS.
The representation of the appellant, as stated above, was rejected by the DGHS on the ground that the State Government had recommended the appellants 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.
The same companyld number be entertained after such a lapse of three years of the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000.
Such a representation companyld number be entertained after a lapse of three years at the sweet will of the appellant.
For the companyvenience of reference, the facts are taken from A. No.7284/2005.
17577 of 2006.
Z.37024/13/92 MG dated 14th November, 2000 addressed to the Chief Executive Director of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant hospital had failed to companyply with the companyditions laid down in para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification extracted above.
The representation filed by the appellant in 2003, seeking change of category from para 2 to para 1 of the Table annexed to the Notification, is clearly an after thought in order to overcome the failure on the part of the appellant to companyply with the companyditions laid down in para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
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.
In the Appeal arising out of SLP No.
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.
The effect of the companymunication dated 14th November, 2000 is that the appellant is number entitled to the exemption under any of the clauses of the aforesaid Notification on or after 14th November, 2000.
All such hospitals which may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in each case, to be run for providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment number only without any distinction of caste, creed, race, religion or language but also, a free, on an average, to at least 40 per cent of all their outdoor patients and b free to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than rupees five hundred per month, and keeping for this purpose at least 10 per cent of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and c at reasonable charges, either on the basis of the income of the patients companycerned or otherwise, to patients other than those specified in clauses a and b .
All such hospitals as may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to be run or substantially aided by such charitable organization as may be approved, from time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare The said representation came to be rejected by the DGHS vide its order dated 18th March, 2004.
The said CDECs were cancelled withdrawn by the Directorate General of Health Services DGHS vide its companymunication bearing No.
17577 of 2006, the representation was filed after a lapse of four years of the withdrawal cancellation of the CDECs, which, as held in the preceding paragraphs, companyld number have been entertained and the High Court has rightly upheld the order of rejection of the change of categorization.17577 of 2006.
5054 of 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CDECs issued to the appellant relate to import of medical equipments for the period between 1988 and 1994.
Apart from this, the change of categorization was sought after a lapse of three years of the withdrawal cancellation of the CDECs.
The CDECs certified that the appellant was companyered under para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.7284 of 2005 and the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No.
C.A. No.7284/2005 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CWP No.
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO S .
17577 of 2006 Keki Byram Grant Appellant s Versus Union of India Others Respondent s BHAN, J. Leave granted in special leave petition No.
The appellant obtained Customs Duty Exemption Certificate for short CDEC , from the Directorate General of Health Services DGHS , for import of various hospital equipments under Notification No.64/88 Cus.
The same reads as under TABLE All such hospitals as may be certified by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to be run or substantially aided by such charitable organization as may be approved, from time to time, by the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Dated 1st March, 1988 for short the Notification .
2613 of 2004 dated 17th December, 2004 whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
