2007 (11) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies to a percentage of poor patients which the hospital treats some as inpatients and some as outpatients. 3. The Directorate General of Health Services who had issued certificate in favour of the petitioner for availing of the concession under the Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 had in the context of the follow up action and to satisfy itself that the petitioner was fulfilling the conditions subject to which equipments were allowed to be imported, it appears issued notices to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to satisfy that the conditions were being meticulously followed. The Directorate General of Health Services it appears had taken such follow up action in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition] and at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner who pointed out that the writ petition was for quashing the subsequent order passed by the Directorate General of Health Services on 17-5-2004 [now produced as Annexure-S1 to this writ petition] and this Hon'ble Court finding that the subsequent order being only an order declining to review the earlier order dated 8-11-2000 and in the absence of any challenge to the earlier order, there was no way of the petitioner getting any relief and therefore in terms of the order dated 8-3-2006 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the legality of the earlier order and the subsequent order passed on an application for reviewing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g/retaining CDEC for import of hospital equipments/spares under notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-88. But you did not respond to it. In order to comply with the principles of natural justice two reminders were issued to you on 5-7-2000 and 28-7-2000 to furnish information in proof of your fulfilment of post-import conditions stipulated under the said notification. Till date no reply has been received from you or the State Govt. Thus your institution has been given ample opportunities to justify fulfilment of the conditions under the said notification, but you have failed to do so." 13. Submission of Shri Brahmadeva, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to get over this observation is that the petitioner, in fact, had given its reply/rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice, in the present case, I do not find any such violation as the petitioner had been put on notice and had been called upon to satisfy with compliance. But, the petitioner had not chosen to respond to that notice. It cannot be characterised as violation of principles of natural justice nor can it be construed as a non-speaking order without taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner. 18. So far as the prayer for quashing the subsequent order/letter dated 17-5-2004 [copy at Annexure-S1], submission of Shri Brahmadeva, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had promptly sought for reviewing the earlier order dated 8-11-2000 by giving a representation on 24-11-2000 itself, but the department had taken ....