Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.....Petitioner
versus
UOI AND AORS..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8431/2011 and C.M. Nos. 19048-49/2011
Decided on : 30.11.2011
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Anil Dutt, Ms. Ruchi Jain, Ms. Namisha Gupta & Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC, along with Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1/UOI.
Mr. Ram Niwas, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
Mr. Abhishek Saket & Mr. Amarjeet Kumar, Advocates for the respondent No. 3.
The obligation of complete disclosure of information by the registration applicant and the entitlement of any person to receive complete information to raise objections to the registration of a claimed plant variety.
Headnote:
Confidential Information - Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights - Section 21, Rule 30, Section 84, Rule 76 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 21, Rule 30, Section 84, and Rule 76 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, and emphasized the obligation of complete disclosure of information by the registration applicant and the entitlement of any person to receive complete information to raise objections to the registration of a claimed plant variety. The court also highlighted the transparency and non-confidential nature of the registration process, dismissing the petitioner's claim of confidentiality and the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of information.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order directing the Registry to furnish certified copies of the petitioner's applications to a competitor, claiming that the information contained confidential details. The petitioner argued that the objections to the release of the entire information should have been considered and a reasoned order passed by the authority, which was not done.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, emphasizing the obligation of complete disclosure of information by the registration applicant and the entitlement of any person to receive complete information to raise objections to the registration of a claimed plant variety. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim of confidentiality and the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of information.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of confidentiality and the authority's obligation to consider objections to the release of entire information submitted with the registration applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the non-confidential nature of the registration process and the obligation of complete disclosure of information by the registration applicant, dismissing the petitioner's claim of confidentiality and the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of information.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim and upholding the authority's decision to furnish certified copies of the petitioner's applications to the competitor.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to assail the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Mr.Manoj Srivastava, Registrar of Plant Varieties Registry, New Delhi.
2. The background facts are that the petitioner made several applications for registration of its plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (the Act), in April 2008. According to the petitioner, these applications were accepted by respondent No. 2, i.e. the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority and advertised by him on 01.12.2008 to invite objections. Respondent No. 3, i.e. Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd., filed its notice of objections to a couple of these applications on 26.02.2009. Some of these applications were advertised on 01.06.2009, and thereafter respondent No. 3 filed objections to these applications also on 12.08.2008 & 31.08.2009.
3. It appears that between 2009 and September 2010, the pleadings were completed and evidence by way of affidavit were filed by the parties. The respondent No. 2 fixed the hearing of the objections of respondent No. 3 in respect of all the applications on 17.11.2011.
4. On the said date, respondent No. 3 stated before respondent No. 2 authority that despite its application in form PV-33 being pending for a long time, respondent No. 3 had not been provided certified copies of the applications and the proceedings. The said application in form PV-33 had been made for obtaining copies of the entire applications form including photographs and correspondence.
5. The petitioner opposed the grant of the entire information, as aforesaid, by contending that Rule 76 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Rules, 2003 (the Rules), provides for providing of extracts of plant variety application and, therefore, the entire application containing plant details, could not be provided. The Registrar, by the impugned order, brushed aside the aforesaid objection of the petitioner and directed the Registry to furnish the certified copies of the petitioners applications in pursuance of PV 33 in the matters before him, within ten days. The matters are now posted for hearing on 17.02.2012 by the Registrar.
6. The submission of Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that along with the applications, the petitioner had entrusted confidential information to respondent No. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without looking into the petitioner’s objections to the release of the entire information furnished by the petitioner along with its registration applications, the Registrar has directed the provision of the registration applications with all the information and correspondence to respondent No. 3, who is a competitor. The petitioner’s apprehension is that by obtaining the said information, which is claimed to be of confidential nature, respondent No. 3 could put further defences by resorting to reverse engineering and by falsely claiming prior user. It is argued by Mr. Jain that the objections of the petitioner to the release of the entire application and information submitted with it and the correspondence exchanged with the registrar, should have been considered and a reasoned order passed by respondent No. 2, which has not been done.
7. Mr. Jain submits that the advertisement of the registration application is made in terms of Section 21 of the aforesaid Act read with Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules. The requirement of disclosure of information contained in the registration application, by advertisement, is limited only to the information mentioned in Rule 30 (3), which reads as follows:
“30. Advertising of application for registration under section 21.- x x x x x x x x x x (3) The contents of such advertisement shall include- (a) name, passport data and source of parental line or initial variety used to develop the variety in respect of which an application for registration ha
