MIS FARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTREversusD.G. HEALTH SERVICES AND ORS.

A                    MIS FARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTRE                                 l
                                    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.

          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.
H                                        122
       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 cannot form the basis for holding that other employees are
    discriminated against under Article 14. The benefit of the exemption notification,
    in the present case, cannot, therefore, be extended to the petitioner on the
    ground that such benefit has been wrongly extended to others. With respect,
C   the decision in Mediwel/ Hospital (supra) does not lay down the correct law
    on this point.

           In the premises, the special leave petition is dismissed.

    Ri>.                                                         Petition dismissed.