Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravinder Singhania vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 August, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11622/2022 & CM 78/2022
RAVINDER SINGHANIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Mr. Vivek
Gupta & Ms. Aditi Mittal,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 04.08.2022
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
"In the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 10.11.2017 of Respondent No. 2, whereby the patent application filed on behalf of the Company was rejected;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the patent application filed on behalf of the Company on its merits;
c) strike down the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of the Act as well as Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Rules being ultra vires and in contravention of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950;
d) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper against Respondent No.1, thereby directing them to bring necessary amendment in the Act so as to remove the anomaly of leaving an Applicant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR W.P.(C) 11622/2022 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:05.08.2022 15:36:49 completely remediless against a decision passed under Section 21(1) of the Act;
e) pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that, at the outset, the petitioner does not wish to press any challenge that Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the rules framed thereunder are ultra vires the Constitution.
3. He submits that the limited grievance is that the petitioner had not received an e-mail dated 28.04.2017, enclosing the examination report and therefore, could not respond to the same within a period of six months as required.
4. The petitioner states that he had, thereafter, sent an e-mail dated 10.11.2017 and had received no response thereto.
5. Issue notice on the limited question of dispatch/ receipt of the examination report to the petitioner, returnable on 06.09.2022.
6. It is seen that there is also an inordinate delay in filing the present petition. The question whether the present petition is required to be entertained in view of the delay would be examined on the next date of hearing.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 4, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR W.P.(C) 11622/2022 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:05.08.2022 15:36:49