http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S. FARIDABAD CT SCAN CENTRE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D. G. HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/09/1997

BENCH: CJI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B. N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:                  Hon’ble 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:      This 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.      Accordingly, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

follows:      "Thus 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.      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 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 India[Railway   Board] &  Ors.   Vs. J. V. Subhaiah and Ors. (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.      In  the   premises,  the   special  leave  petition  is dismissed.