MIS FARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTRE versus D.G. HEALTH SERVICES AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 15-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS F ARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTRE 
v. 
D.G. HEALTH SERVICES AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 
B [M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHARAND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962 : 
S.3.25(1)-Notification No. 64188--Customs dated 1.3. 1988-"Hospital 
C equipment"-lmport of-Exemption from Customs duty-Diagnostic Centre 
run by a private individual not attached to any hospital-Held, not entitled 
to benefit of Notification. 
•. 
Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 
D Ors., [1997) 1 sec 759' explained and affirmed. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 14-lndividual diagnostic centre not attached to any hospital-· 
Claiming exemption under Notification No. 64188 Custom dated 1.3.1988 on 
E the ground that other similar units got the benefit-Held, benefit cannot be 
extended to appellant on the ground that such benefit has been wrongly 
extended to others. 
Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of the India and 
Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 759, Granting relief to appellant on the basis of Article 
p 14 of the Constitution, disapproved. 
Union of India (Railway Board) and Ors., v. J. V. Subhaiah and Ors., 
(1996] 2 sec 258, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
G 23964of1996. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.J 1.96 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 2495of1994. 
Pradeep Jain and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Petitioner. 
122 
l 
FARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTRE v. D.G. HEALTH SERVICES 
123 
N.K. Bajpai and W.A. Qadri for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This petition for special leave was originally dismissed by an order 
dated 16.12.96 passed by a Bench of two Judges-Verma, J. (as he then was) 
and Kirpal, J. In view, however, of a judgment of another Bench of two Judges B 
(K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.),. in a similar matter Mediwell Hospital 
and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 759, the 
order of 16.12.96 was recalled by the order of8.8.97 The reasons for recall as 
set out in the order of 8.8.97 are :-
"After we had dismissed S.LP. (C) No. 23964of1996 on 16.12.1996, C 
another 2-Judge Bench appears to have granted relief in a similar 
matter which may give impression that the view taken therein is 
different. It is, therefore, appropriate that the possible ambiguity or 
uncertainty on the question of law should be removed by judgment 
of a 3-Judge Bench. We therefore, recall our order dated 16.12.1996 D 
dismissing the special leave petition and dir;ct that the special leave 
petition be listed for hearing before a 3-Judge Bench. The papers be 
placed before the Hon' ble CJ.I. for constituting the Bench." 
Accordingly, we have heard the parties. In the case of Mediwell Hospital and 
Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (supra), this Court on the E · 
merits of the case has not taken a view different from the view taken by the 
Bench in this case while passing the order of dismissal. In para I 0 of that 
judgment it is recorded as follows : 
"Thus a diagnostic centre run by a private individual purely on 
commercial basis may not be entitled to the exemption under the F 
notification issued by the Central Government. The conclusion of the 
Central Government as well as that of the High Court on this score, 
therefore, may not be held to be incorrect." 
The Court, however, granted relief to the appellant in that case on the 
ground that several other individual diagnostic centres not attached to any G 
hospital had been granted the exemption under the notification in the question 
and hence there should not be any discrimination against the appellant under 
Article 14. ·The relief was granted entirely on the basis of Article 14. 
We fail to see how Article 14 can be attracted in cases where wrong 
orders are issued in favour of others. Wrong orders cannot be perpetuated H 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A with the help of Article 14 on the basis that such wrong orders were earlier 
passed in favour of some other persons and, therefore, there will be 
discrimination against others if correct orders are passed against them. In fact, 
in the case of Union of India [Railway Board] & Ors. v. J. V. Subhaiah and 
Ors., [ 1996] 2 SCC 258, the same Learned Judge in his judgment has observed 
in para 21 that the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 does not 
B apply when the order relied upon is unsustainable in law and is illegal. Such 
an order 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.