( 1 ) THIS is a Writ petition filed by an Advocate in public interest. The petitioner prays that respondent nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from manufacturing, stocking and marketing their product kitchen salt under the trade mark of Dandi with pictorial representation in the background which creates an impression that mahatma Gandhi, father of the nation, is picking up salt. According to the petitioner, the trade mark Dandi itself gives an impression that it has to do something with the historical march started by the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi during freedom struggle. This march was by way of protest against Salt laws and the respondents are selling their salt brand named as Dandi with a picture which is similar to the picture of mahatma Gandhi and his followers taken at the time of Dandi march which has become so famous in the country for number of decades and that it is being taken almost as a sacred documentation of Mahatma Gandhi and freedom struggle. The petitioner contends that the pictorial representation and the name itself of the product sold by respondents 1 and 2 is in contravention of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) act, 1950.

( 2 ) THE respondents have filed their counter. One of the counters has been filed by a partner of respondent No. 2 firm. He stated that, the writ petition has been filed at the instance of his business rivals and is not a bona fide attempt of seeing that the provisions of Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 are not violated. It is also submitted that such attempts were made by his business rivals by filing a writ petition being W. P. No. 115/ 2002 in the name of one Shri Ishvan s/o shyam Rao in the High Court of Bombay, nagpur Bench which was dismissed in limini by the Bombay High Court. He further stated that, the grounds taken in the writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court were identical to the grounds taken in the present writ petition. The order passed by the Bombay High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Copies of the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Hon ble supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9148 of 2002 have been filed before this Court. It is contended that, since the matter has already been decided by a High Court at bombay and the SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court therefore this matter cannot be re-agitated again. A plea of res judicata has also been taken. It was also contended that a notice had been given which was unlawful therefore the respondent did not reply the notice.

( 3 ) IN the counter filed by respondent no. 1, it is submitted that they are not manufacturing any salt in the name of Dandi.

( 4 ) BEFORE coming to the legal position, we would like to deal with the objection raised by respondent No. 2 in the first instance that the matter is res judicata as the matter has already been decided by the High court of Bombay and an appeal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. We have gone through the orders passed by the bombay High Court and also the Supreme court in SLP. The High Court of Bombay passed the following order on 12-4-2002:"heard. THE contentions of the petitioner are misplaced. We do not find any merits in the matter. The petition is dismissed. "thereafter the matter was taken to the supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9148 of 2002. The Supreme Court passed the j following order: the Special leave petition is dismissed. Neither the High Court nor the Supreme court considered the issues raised in the writ petition. Therefore, there is no question of the matter having become res judicata. The Bombay High Court gave no reasons for dismissing the Writ petition, the Supreme court also dismissed the SLP and did not grant leave to file appeal, without any reasons. Therefore, we do not think that, because the matter was raised before the bombay High Court this Court would not be entitled to hear the case on merits. The objection raised by the other side cannot be accepted and the