Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MIS FARIDABAD CT. SCAN CENTRE versus D.G. HEALTH SERVICES AND ORS.

Decided
15 September 1997
Judges listed
M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 122 · 1997 INSC 655
Also cited as
  • (1997) 7 SCC 752 (48 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 9 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 (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 :-

p. 123, margin A

"After we had dismissed S.LP. (C) No. 23964of1996 on 16.12.1996, 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 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

p. 123, margin C

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 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 :

p. 123, margin D

"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,

p. 123, margin D

therefore, may not be held to be incorrect."

p. 123, margin F

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 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.

p. 123, margin F

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 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 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, the decision in Mediwel/ Hospital (supra) does not lay down the correct law on this point.

pp. 123–124, margin G

In the premises, the special leave petition is dismissed. Ri>. Petition dismissed.

p. 124, margin C