Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016

23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the various portions of the order passed by the IPAB and contended that there are patent error, perversities and infirmities in the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in para No.18 of the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, the conclusions reached by IPAB are without application of mind with respect to distinction between Section 12 and Section 14 of the Act. The IPAB also did not appreciate the express provisions contained under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which goes against the grant of GI jurisprudence and Agreement on Trade related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (in short TRIPS) history. By pointing out the observations rendered in para No.39 of the impugned order, the learned counsel would contend that the observation that "Basmati rice has been traditionally grown and produced in a specific region of the Indo-Gangetic Plain below the foot hills of Himalayas" is without any reasoning and evidence. Such observation alters the very basis on which the third respondent had arrived at a conclusion to direct APEDA to include the 13 Districts of State of Madhya Pradesh. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to each and every one of the observations made by the Board in Para Nos.40, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 62 and 65 of the order of the IPAB and contended that Sections 12 and 14 of the Act have been misconstrued and not properly considered by the IPAB while appreciating the Opposition of the petitioner. The IPAB also failed to consider as to whether APEDA has strictly complied with the requirements under Section 11 of the Act despite the Madhya Pradesh based parties raising grave and fundamental objections in the manner in which APEDA claimed GI registration only in respect of five States without any demarcation of Basmati growing areas within the said http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 States, including Delhi. It is further stated that IPAB erred in holding that the Indo- Gangetic Plain is the traditional Basmati growing area without any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The IPAB, while directing the third respondent to grant GI registration to APEDA for Basmati rice, ought to have tested the veracity of the claim made by APEDA, even in the absence of any objections from the Madhya Pradesh based parties. APEDA, being a statutory body and claiming themselves to have taken several steps to protect the national interest, has in fact acted against the public interest. The finding of the IPAB that Indo-gangetic Plain is the traditional Basmati rice growing area, has defeated the very object of remanding the case for inclusion of certain areas claimed by Madhya Pradesh based parties, especially when the IPAB has positively directed the third respondent to grant GI registration in favour of APEDA for Basmati rice. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remand proceedings resorted to by the IPAB has become an empty formality. On the one hand, the IPAB has remanded the matter back to the third respondent for fresh consideration and at the same breath, it had directed issuance of GI Registration Certificate to APEDA for Basmati rice. By accepting APEDA's claim that Indo-Gangetic Plain is the only traditional Basmati rice growing area, the IPAB has completely set aside the well merited findings rendered by the third respondent in the Judgment dated 31.12.2013. Further, the finding of the IPAB that "Popular perception" is the criterion for grant of GI, is wholly untenable and it goes against the spirit of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which sets out three important requirements, namely "quality", "reputation" and other "Characteristic" in relation to geographical origin of the goods. The IPAB has only considered the element of "reputation" of the areas http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 claimed by APEDA, instead it ought to have examined the claim of APEDA in proper perspective. Further, no where in the order which is impugned in these writ petitions, the IPAB has undertaken an analysis of APEDA's claim for including the entire State of Delhi as a traditional Basmati growing area, since Delhi as well as Uttar Pradesh are not even associated with Basmati cultivation.

25. For the same proposition, with respect to maintainability of a writ petition as against a perverse order passed by a quasi-judicial Tribunal or Forum, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and others), reported in 1984 (4) SCC 635.

26. Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP. No. 9564 of 2016 would vehemently contend that the basis on which certain areas have been included by APEDA in their application for registration of GI, is without any scientific evidence. The areas mentioned by http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 APEDA in the application for GI are the entire States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttarkhand, parts of Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Upon consideration of the application under Section 12 of the Act, the third respondent rightly directed APEDA to withdrew the acceptance of such application filed by APEDA on the ground that it failed to satisfy the fundamental and basic requirement to make a clear, specific and reasoned demarcation of actual Basmati rice cultivating areas. It was also reasoned that the actual Basmati cultivating areas must be included in the GI application and such areas must be identified upto the Village and Panchayat level. Therefore, the third respondent directed APEDA to re- submit the application by rectifying the defects pointed out therein. However, APEDA filed an appeal before the Board and it was allowed without considering the objections raised by the petitioners with respect to the areas indicated in the application filed by APEDA. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that a bare perusal of the application under Section 12 of the Act would show that the very basis of the said application was the unreasoned and unscientific manner in which the entire States were included by APEDA in the GI application. By pointing out Section 11 of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the objection of Section 11 of the Act is to identify with specificity the territories/areas sought to be included and supported by history and commercial production of the product for a significant period of time prior to the date of filing of the application for GI. The application under Section 12 of the Act clearly captures the history of the region where Basmati rice is grown and it was also part of the deliberations with the Consultative Group under Rule 33 of the GI Rules on 26.11.2008. Even in the meeting convened on 28.01.2010 between http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 the Consultative Group and representatives of the second respondent, it was directed to ascertain the correctness of the particulars furnished by APEDA with respect to area of demarcation inter-alia to provide relevant information on the mapping of the area which was guided by the National Basmati field trials. The second respondent/APEDA was also asked to furnish the names and address of farmers who constituted the authority provided under the APEDA Act. However, the response of APEDA to the above clarification sought for by the Consultative Group was manifestly evasive.

31. Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent in these writ petitions, namely APEDA, would vehemently oppose the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent that APEDA is a statutory authority established under the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short, 'the APEDA Act') enacted by the Parliament. The APEDA Act was enacted for development and promotion of export of certain agricultural and processed food products from India, including Basmati rice. According to him, APEDA is a non-trading body constituted to represent the interest of the producers/stakeholders, including farmers, exporters and importers of Basmati. As per the APEDA Act, apart from a Chairman to be appointed by the Central Government, three other Members of Parliament, 8 Members appointed by the Central Government to represent the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, commerce, finance, industry, food, civil supplies, civil aviation, shipping and transport; 5 members to represent the State and Union Territories; 7 members to represent the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, National Horticulture Board, the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation, the Central Food Technological Research Institute etc., 12 members to represent fruit and vegetable product industries, other scheduled products industries etc., and 2 http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 members from amongst the Specialists and Scientists in the field of agriculture, economics and marketing of scheduled products, were included. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that APEDA has wide representation from all the stakeholders with diverse interest in the field. From the constitution of APEDA in the year 1995, it had taken several initiatives to protect the goodwill and propriety of "Basmati rice" on a global basis for the benefit of all the stakeholders by enforcing the common law rights on their behalf. Listing out the details of the efforts taken by APEDA as required under Section 10(2)((b) of the APEDA Act, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that several actions have been taken to prevent the attempt by third party persons to misappropriate the name 'Basmati' and its deceptive variants such as Texmati, Kasmati, Basnati, Basmall etc., and APEDA has been enforcing labelling guidelines in India through legal actions initiated at various stages. APEDA has also successfully challenged and forced a voluntary surrender/revocation of claims of patent taken out in United States of America by Ricetec Inc., during the year 2000, seeking to confer monopoly upon Ricetec towards production and marketing of rice grains inter-alia claiming rights with respect to export of Basmati rice to United States of America. During the year 2003, APEDA along with All India Rice Exporters Association (in short, AIREA) established a society, by the name of Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) with the objective of undertaking the promotion and development of supply chain of Basmati rice and in particular, to promote, develop and coordinate the integrated activities with diverse stakeholders, such as farmers, traders, exporters and consumers.

40. Next, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent that the writ petitioners never challenged the application submitted by APEDA with respect to the area of cultivation mentioned therein. In other words, the issue with regard to area of Basmati cultivation was never an issue before the third respondent as well as in the appeal filed by APEDA before the IPAB. Even in the notice of opposition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the GI Act, it was only submitted that APEDA had not included in the application for registration of the areas that produce and cultivate Basmati rice in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, it was submitted in the notice of Opposition that if the application of APEDA is entertained for GI registration, without including Madhya Pradesh in its area, even though, the State of Madhya Pradesh is in Indo Gangetic Plain and is producing Basmati in several areas, Basmati growers in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the consuming public and trade would be put to irreparable loss. Precisely, the prayer sought for in the notice of Opposition is only to include the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the application for registration of Basmati rice as GI and not otherwise. Thus, it could be evident from the notice of Opposition that the petitioner never opposed the area of cultivation indicated by APEDA in the application, rather, the petitioner wanted to include certain areas that http://www.judis.nic.in  wp 5798 of 2016 produce and cultivate Basmati rice in Madhya Pradesh. However, in the order dated 31.12.2013 of the third respondent, while allowing the application of Opposition, the third respondent directed the second respondent/APEDA to file an amended GI Application No.14 by including the uncovered area, with map of the region clearly demarcating the area of production within 60 days. The order dated 31.12.2013 of the third respondent was subjected to challenge before the IPAB by APEDA and it was allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.12.2013 of the third respondent. It is specifically contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent/APEDA that as against the order dated 31.12.2013 of the third respondent, the second respondent/APEDA has filed an appeal before the IPAB. However, the writ petitioners never assailed the order dated 31.12.2013 insofar as it relates to confirmation of the APEDA's demarcation of Basmati growing areas in the GI application. Thus, the demarcation of Basmati growing areas specified by APEDA, has attained finality. While so, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent/APEDA, the present writ petitions themselves are barred by the doctrines of res-judicata and estoppel.