M/S. Faridabad CT Scan Centre Vs. D. G. Health
Services & Ors  INSC 732 (15 September 1997)
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B. N. KIRPAL
the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mrs. justice Sujata V. Manohar Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.
N. Kirpal Pradeep jain and Ms. Manjula Gupta, Adv, for the Petitioner.
N. K. Bajpai
and W.A. Qadri, Adv. for the Respondents O R D E R The following Order of the
Court was delivered:
Petition for special leave was 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 judgement of another Bench of two Judges (K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik,
JJ.), in a similar matter Mediwell Hospital & Ors,(1997<1) SCC 759) the
order of 16.12.96 was recalled by the order of 8.8.97. The reasons for recall
as set out in the order of 8.8.97 are:- "After we had dismissed S.L.P.(c)
No. 23964 of 1996 on 16.12.96, another 2-Judge Bench appears to have granted
relief in a similar matter which may give impression that the view taken
therein different. It is, therefore, appropriate that the possible ambiguity or
uncertainty on the question of law should be removed by judgement of a 3-judge
bench. We, therefore , recall our order dated 16.12.1996 dismissing the special
leave petition and direct that the special leave petition be listed for hearing
before a 3-Judge Bench. The papers be placed before the Hon'ble C.J.I. for
constituting the Bench.
we have heard the parties. In the case of Mediwell Hospital & Health Care
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), this court on the merits of
the view taken by the Bench in this case while passing the order of dismissal.
In para 10 of that judgement it is recorded as follows:
a diagnostic centre run by a private individual purely on commercial basis may
not be entitled to the exemption under the 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 hospital had
been granted the exemption under the notification in 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.
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 with the help of
Article 14 on the such wrong orders were earlier passed in favour of some other
persons and, therefore, there will be discrimination against them. In fact, in
the case of Union of (1996 (2) SCC 258), the same Learned
judge in his judgement has observed in para 21 that the principle of equality
enshrined under Article 14 does not 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
benefits 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, the decision in Mediwell hospital (supra)
does not lay down the correct law on this point.
premises, the special leave petition is dismissed.