Taking advantage of the aforesaid Notification, the appellant got sanction to import four machines though only three were imported and also furnished the necessary documents to the authorities.
The appellant in its reply dated 28th July 1997 pointed out that this equipment had number been imported, but gave the other details to the respondent.
Vide order dated 9th December 1997, respondent No.1 thereupon withdrew the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate which had been issued to the appellant.
The appellant submitted a detailed Memorandum to respondent No.1 on 6th February 1998 but to numbereffect.
The facts of the case are as under The appellant herein, is a private limited companypany established for the purpose of companyducting diagnostic tests and treating patients with specific Andrological problems.
The appellant once again wrote to respondent No.1 that the required information had been supplied on which a reply dated 9th December 1997 was received from respondent No.1 that the information had, in fact, number been furnished and in particular referred to the details of the use of the Hand Held Recording Doppler and the details of the free services which had to be given to the poorest individuals.
A companynter affidavit was filed in response to the Writ Petition and on a companysideration of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment dated 8th November, 2005.
Some additional information was supplied but it appears that respondent No.1 was number satisfied on which, vide annexure P5 dated 6th October 1997 the appellant was refused the installation certificate for the imported medical equipment.
The appellant, however, received two letters dated 18th June 1997 and 14th July 1997 requiring it to furnish yet more information with respect to the use of the Hand Held Recording Doppler for which an authorization for import had been issued.
of A.P., intimating that he had companyducted an inspection of the appellants hospital with respect to the use of the imported equipment and the free services that were to be provided to the poor in accordance with the terms of the exemption Notification.
On 1st March 1988, a Notification was issued by the Government of India whereby medical equipment imported for specified purposes, was exempted from the payment of customs duty.
Taking numbere of the report aforesaid, respondent No.3 forwarded the recommendation to respondent No.1 for the issuance of an installation certificate.
Respondent No.2, the Director, Medical Education submitted a report to respondent No.3, Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical Family Welfare Department, Govt.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 9th December 1997 and praying for a direction to respondent No.1 to issue the Installation Certificate with respect to the imported equipment.
Respondent No.1, however, wrote another letter dated 6th October 1997 to the appellant giving 10 days time to furnish the information that had been sought.
It appears that respondent No.1 thereafter asked for some additional information which too was companylected and companyveyed to the said officer vide letter dated 29th March 1996.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has dismissed the Writ Petition questioning the validity of the order dated 9th December 1997 issued by the Director General Health Services, New Delhi.
