2008 (2) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e have to supplement the reasons contained in the order of the learned Single Judge after considering certain aspects which are not dealt with by the learned Single Judge in his order while rejecting the writ petition and in not interfering with the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. 3. This Writ Appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches caused in filing the Writ Petition as the appellant has not explained the delay in filing the Writ Petitions by proper and tenable reasons as the impugned orders were passed in the year 2000 and 2004 which are challenged undisputedly after lapse of 7 and 3 years in the Writ Petition. The earlier Writ Petition filed by the appellant before this Court in WP 30223/2004....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....purporting to forward copy of the same to Prof. A.S. Bais, Deputy Director General (Medical) of the respondent's office. 5. With reference to the same, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed at para-15 of the impugned order stating that it is the reply to the first letter dated 10-4-2000 nor subsequent reminders issued on 5-7-2000 and 28-7-2000. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has not shown cause though he has been called upon to indicate that it has complied with the conditions subject to which it had permitted to import the hospital equipment under the concessional duty. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that contention urged on behalf of appellant that order impugned was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. The said contention of the appellant's counsel has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by recording reasons at para-19 of the impugned order, wherein it is stated that the respondent has expressed its inability to review the order in view of the factual position and therefore it is held that he has rightly rejected the above representation of the appellant and the same is held to be in conformity with the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C.) therefore, the respondent did not find any reason to interfere with his order and further he has found that there was absolutely no scope for him to review his earlier or....