9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccessories thereof and the import of which was approved in each case, by the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, or by Director General of Health Services to the Government of India, as essential for use in the hospital. The Custom Duty Exemption Certificate in the case of the petitioner No.2-hospital was granted by the Respondent No.1 on 1-3-1988, vide Notification No.64/88-QUS. In pursuance of the said Notification, the petitioners have submitted their proposal for grant of Certificate, in question, to the Director General, Health Services, through the Deputy Director, Health Services, Nagpur, on 10-1-1989, which was recommended to the Director, Health Services, after its due verification and inspection. It is further contended that on 16-11-1989, Public Health Department of the State Government, recommended the proposal of the petitioner to the Director General, Technical Development, Government of India, for grant of Certificate of "not manufactured in India". On 22-2-1989, the Director General, Technical Development, Government of India, issued to the petitioner a certificate of "not manufactured in India". On 24-4-1990, Computerised Stress System ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was also not informed the purpose and object for which, the information was sought. The petitioner, therefore, was denied an opportunity of being heard, to put forth their case at the threshold and, therefore, the impugned order dated 30-8-2000 is without giving any show cause notice and hence the same cannot be sustained. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Deshpande, also challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is passed by the respondent No. 1, without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner no. 1 and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate right to defend his case and put forth his claim before the competent authority. It is contended that the impugned order not only caused grave injustice to the petitioners, but it has also resulted in enormous civil consequences. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the communication dated 24-2-2000, as well as the impugned order dated 30-8-2000, passed by the respondent No.1, being violative of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. 7. It is further submitted that the issue, in question in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communication, dated 24-2-2000 as well as impugned order dated 30-8-2000, passed by the Resp. No. 1, may be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the impugned order is challenged only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, other grounds raised in the petition, may be kept open. 10. Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel, has not disputed the fact that the respondent No. 1, before passing the impugned order dated 30-8-2000, did not grant hearing to the petitioner no.1, however, it is contended that the impugned order is passed on the basis of the information furnished by the petitioner, in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 24-2-2000 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard to defend the case. 11. Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel states that the communication dated 24-2-2000 was nothing but show-cause notice, calling upon the petitioner no. 1 to furnish the informations as set out under items (i) to (v), which reads as under :- "(i) (a) Whether the medical equipment has been installed in the premises of the hospital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 1-3-1988. It is argued before us that the action of the respondent no.1 is in conformity with the procedure in this regard and is sustainable in law. It is further contended that the petitioner was given opportunity to furnish all the relevant information/data as asked for, and after taken into consideration the same, the impugned order dated 30-8-2000 was passed by the Resp. No. 1 and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. 14. Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel, in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the Judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, in W.P. No. 28186-87/96 (The Medical Relief Society of South Kanara v. The Union of India and Ors.) - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 327 (Kar.) and the Judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 6164/1998, dated 6th September, 1999 (CT Scan Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General of Health Services, and Ors.). In the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court in CT Scan case (cited supra) express thus :- "A conjoint reading of the [show cause notice th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communication does not imply anything else. In view of the nature of the communication dated 24-2-2000 and as per the recitals contained therein, we have no hesitation to hold that the communication, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to be a show cause notice, issued to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate, should not be revoked/cancelled. The recitals in the impugned communication, on the other hand, do not even remotely indicate that the information, as asked for by the respondent, was in order to take decision of cancellation/revocation of the Certificate in question, which was granted to the petitioner, more than a decade ago. In our opinion, the said communication dated 24-2-2000 amounts to denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself at the threshold itself, for want of appropriate and specific show-cause notice in this regard and in absence thereof, the petitioner could not place all the relevant material before the authorities and, therefore, the action of the respondent is bad in law for want of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in this regard. 17. We expect the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olative of principles of natural justice. 20. The contentions canvassed before us by Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent, are totally misconceived and devoid of substance. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we respectfully disagree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court (cited supra), and we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the M/s. Apollo Hospitals case (cited supra). 22. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the communication dated 24-2-2000, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as law laid down by Madras High Court, cannot be treated and construed as show cause notice, much less notice for the purposes of taking decision of cancellation/revocation of the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate. Similarly, merely because the Resp. No. 1 considered the innocuous material for passing the impugned order dt. 30-8-2000, it also cannot be held that it complies with the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the whole action of respondent, in our opinion, is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
