( 1 ) THE petitioners numbering two, a Chartered Accountant and an Advocate, have Filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs :-

(I) Issue. appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Registrar of Trade Marks, Respondent. No. 3. from registering any purported trade marks of foreign newspaper which are already registered with the Registrar of Newspapers, Respon- dent No. 2, under Section 6 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. having same or similar names as that of the applicants Newspapers.

(II) To issue appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks, Respondent No. 3 to strictly comply, and not to ignore or violate Section 6 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, while registering the purported trade mark of any foreign newspaper.

(III) To issue appropriate order or direction in the nature of prohibition or mandamus quashing the order of Registrar of Trade Marks, Respon- dent No. 3, registering the purported Trade Mark of foreign newspapers having same or similar name which are already in circulation and regis- tered under Section 6 of the Press Act.

(IV) Pass any other order or orders as are deemed Fit and appropriate in the fact and circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) THERE are three respondents, namely, (1) Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; (2) Registrar of Newspapers for India under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (forshort the PRB Act );and (3) Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958 (for short the Trade Marks Act ). At the outset it was pointed out that the petitioners had no interest in the matter, they being interlopers and could not maintain such a petition. It was said that they are front men of some newspapers as prayer (i) would show where the last line refers to "same or similar names as that of applicant newspapers". We will come to this point at a later stage. When this petition came up for admission before avacation Judge on 22 December 1993, he issued notice in the petition as well as in an application seeking interim relief for 24 December 1993. At this stage respondents 2 and 3 were restrained from registering any foreign newspaper with the title similar to the title "sun". This order was made on an application (C. M. 9410/93) on behalf of M/s. Bandhu Associates seeking to be impleaded as a petitioner in the petition. In their application Bandhu Associates, apart from seeking to be impleaded as a party in the petition, also sought restraint on the respondents from reg- istering any name, or similar name which was already registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under theprb Act including the name of the applicant. Similar restraint was sought on the Registrar of Trade Marks as well that that respondent be restrained from registering any foreign newspaper with the same or similar title to the title "sun". Without Bandhu Associates being impleaded as a party in the petition, the court passed the restraint order as abovementioned. Another application (C. M. 9399/93) was filed by M/s. Times Publishing House Limited for intervention. In this also prayer was made respecting the newspaper of the applicant under the name "financial TIMES" as in the case of "sun". On this application, while issuing notice the court recorded submission of Mr. Anil Dewan, learned counsel for Financial Times Ltd. , U. K. , that he would also be moving an application to be impleaded as a party in the petition. The court recorded that Mr. Dewan drew its attention to a case pending in the Bangalore City Civil Court between Financial Times Ltd. , London, and M/s. Times Publishing House Limited. In this view of the matter the court, therefore, did not pass any interim order. The application for impleadment later filed by Financial Times Limited is C. M. 20/94. At