LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-61

UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDRANATH PRADHAN

Decided On August 29, 2013
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Ravindranath Pradhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has preferred this appeal against the order dated 03.12.2007 in W.P. No. 33170/2004 passed by the learned single Judge who has held that the period of Patent is to be reckoned from 23.02.2001 and not from 19.06.1992 as ordered by the Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed a patent application for grant of Patent under Section 7 of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 19.06.1992. It was numbered as 374/MAS/92 by the 3rd respondent for examination. The petitioner was seeking a Patent for process of preparing slow burning coloured cigarettes wherein the microspores in the cigarette filter are blocked with coloured pigment and dyes, the colours being in the range of wave length of 3696 A.U. to 7070 A.U. The 3rd respondent after scrutiny raised certain objections by sending a letter dated 03.11.1995, the period within which the petitioner should have complied with the objections was 26.10.1996. The petitioner sent reply to the said objections by speed post on 22.10.1996 which was delivered to the 3rd respondent on 30.10.1996. Since there was delay on the part of the postal department in delivering that article, the 3rd respondent refused to accept the specifications and in that regard, wrote a letter dated 18.03.1997 stating that the application was not put in order for acceptance within the period stipulated under Section 21(1) of the Act and therefore, deemed to have been abandoned. Aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 18307/1997. The learned single Judge was of the view that the respondent ought to have taken into consideration the delay was due to postal strike, for which, the petitioner should not be penalized. The petitioner had taken all steps possible to despatch his explanation and clarifications sought by the respondent well within the time so that it could reach the respondents on or before 26.10.1996. Therefore, the communication dated 18.03.1997 was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Respondents-Authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner on merits without reference to the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and the extended period under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. Even after the remand of the matter, the application was not considered though six months' time was granted by the High Court to consider the same. After several visits to Chennai, the petitioner was called upon to re-submit his application on 23.02.2001 which was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 09.04.2001. Thereafter, by a communication dated 09.04.2001, the petitioner was informed that the application has been accepted and it is found to be in order. Further, they informed the petitioner that the notice of acceptance will be issued to the petitioner by the Patent Office, Kolkata after acceptance of the complete specification being notified in the official Gazette. Thus, for all practical purposes, the date of application for patent is to be treated as 23.02.2001. On 27.09.2002, the petitioner received notice of acceptance of complete specification under Section 23 of the Act from the second respondent. After such acceptance, Sl. No. 187971 was granted to the petitioner's application. The second respondent published the claim of the petitioner in the Gazette of India on August 03rd 2002 calling for objections of the interested persons. Within three months on the expiry of the prescribed period, the petitioner remitted the ceiling fee of Rs. 1,500/- on 20.12.2002. The second respondent did not receive any objections from any person for the claim of the petitioner. The Patent was received on 07.03.2003. The same was published in the official Gazette on 05.04.2003. The Patent was forwarded to the petitioner vide No. 187971/19.06.1992. In the patent granted to the petitioner, it was notified that the term of the Patent is for 14 years from 19.06.1992. The second respondent sent a communication dated 28.04.2003 to the petitioner advising him to remit a sum of Rs. 15,400/- on or before 22.07.2003 to maintain the Patent in force. That amount is supposed to be the renewal fees in respect of the 3rd to 12th year of term of the patent, which had fallen due on 19.06.1994 to 19.06.2003. The petitioner paid the said renewal fee and remitted the same on 16.06.2003.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the Patent should be valid for a period of 14 years from the date of sealing and not from that date when the earliest effort was made by the petitioner to get his application scrutinized. At any rate, the commencement period of Patent granted to the petitioner should be 07.03.2003. The action of the authority is illegal and arbitrary. He is not liable to pay the renewal amount.