JANAK MATHURADAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought by this writ petition orders restraining the Union of India from permitting the third respondent to manufacture razor blades in collaboration with the fourth respondent and marketing the same in India under a foreign brand name. According to the petitioner the Government of India has granted a licence to the third respondent and also taken a decision allowing the use of "foreign brand name '7 O'clock' either per se by itself or in combination and/or conjunction with other names as a prefix or suffix" in the manufacture of the blades by the third respondent. The Union of India has filed a counter' affidavit in which it has been stated that no individual manufacturer has approached the Government for grant of "permission for the use of a foreign brand name nor has '7 O' Clock' brand name been granted. It is further stated that the petitioner's assumed threat in this regard is imaginary and misconceived. Respondent No. 3 in its reply affidavit has referred to the foreign collaboration agreement entered into by it with the fourth respondent and the terms of the Government's approval to the said agreement. Reference has been made to a memorandum of the Government dt. 18th Dec., 1982 by which the Government of India took on record the collaboration agreement as amended by the third respondent in pursuance of the directions issued by the Government earlier on 8th November, 1982. By letter dt. 8th Nov., 1982 the Government had directed the amendment of the collaboration agreement inter alia in the following respect. Clause 10(2) of the agreement was to be amended to read 'as follows :

(2.) . On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India does not set down the correct position and that the Government has approved a foreign brand name being used by the third respondent. Counsel submits that this has happened subsequent to 18th of Dec., 1982. He, therefore, filed C.M. No. 2221/85 calling for the records of the Union of India and permitting inspection of the same by the petitioner. In this context it may be mentioned that this application was considered necessary because in the counter' affidavit filed by the Union of India it had claimed privilege of the record under S. 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) . In the writ petition the short point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that under the guidelines promulgated by the Government of India for grant of licences to new manufacturers, one of the most important conditions insisted upon by the Government is : "the foreign use of brand names will not be permitted for internal sales". It is on the basis of this clause that the petitioner contends that the grant of licence to third respondent to manufacture blades under the brand name '7' O' Clock' even with an Indian prefix or suffix would be arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be quashed by this court.