Upl Limited vs Registrar - 2024 Supreme(Del) 368

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Upl Limited - Appellant
Versus
Registrar & Anr. - Respondents
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PV) 3 of 2022, I.A. 16633 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Mr. Siddharth Raj Choudhary and Mr. Skanda Shekhar, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Chetan Lokur, Mr. K.V. Grish Chawdary, Mr. D. Satya Sai Sumanth, Mr. Vaibhav Kaul and Ms. Saumya Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and Mr. Krishnan V., Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Act - Registrar's Misinterpretation of Section 24(5) - Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Act, 2001 - The court found that the Registrar's interpretation of Section 24(5) was contrary to the mandate of the statute and represented a clear failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested by the statute. The court also addressed the enforceability of Section 24(5) and concluded that the provision remains in force and applicable as per the statute's original intent, pending a final determination by the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal under Section 56 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Act, 2001 impugned an order dismissing the Appellant's application filed under Section 24(5) of the Act for seeking reliefs of damages, injunction, and rendition of accounts. The Registrar held the application to be not maintainable, reasoning that such an action could only be initiated following the grant of plant variety registration and not while the application for registration was still under consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar's interpretation of Section 24(5) was contrary to the mandate of the statute and represented a clear failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested by the statute. The court also addressed the enforceability of Section 24(5) and concluded that the provision remains in force and applicable as per the statute's original intent, pending a final determination by the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the maintainability of an application under Section 24(5) of the Act prior to the registration of the plant variety and the effect of the Supreme Court's stay on the High Court's declaration of the provision as ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's misinterpretation of Section 24(5) represented a clear failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested by the statute. The court also concluded that the provision remains in force and applicable as per the statute's original intent, pending a final determination by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Impugned Order was set aside. The Appellant's application under Section 24(5) of the Act was restored to its original number, and the Registrar was directed to proceed to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law in respect of reliefs sought at Paragraphs No. 18(a), 18(c), and 19 of the modified prayers enclosed with the covering letter of the Appellant dated 28th June, 2021.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral) - The present appeal under Section 56 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Act, 2001 ["Act"] impugns order dated 25th July, 2022 ["Impugned Order"], passed by Respondent No. 1/Registrar, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority.

2. The Impugned Order has dismissed the Appellant's application filed under Section 24(5) of the Act for seeking reliefs of, inter-alia, damages, injunction and rendition of accounts. At that juncture, the said application had undergone comprehensive trial, final arguments had been heard and a verdict was expected on merits. Nonetheless, the Registrar held the application to be not maintainable, reasoning that such an action could only be initiated following the grant of plant variety registration and not while the application for registration was still under consideration. Consequently, the application was rejected on the premise of being prematurely filed. This rationale of the Registrar is encapsulated in the following excerpt from the Impugned Order:

"The main crux of the issue involved in this matter is that the Applicant has applied for compound registration of their Okra varieties RAADHIKA (REG/2018/164 H) along with AV 508-Female Parent (REG/20187/164 P1) and AV 509 Male Parent (REG/2018/164 P2). The Applicant in their 24(5) application has stated that Respondent by commercializing varieties Bindu and NBH-45 is abusing the commercial interest of the applicant's varieties RAADHIKA hybrid and AV 509 male parent and AV 508 female parent.

Before adverting to the main issues involved in this matter. I am first inclined to adjudicate on the issue whether the Section 24(5) application is maintainable before registration of the variety. Section 24(5) is extracted hereunder:

"24(5) The Registrar shall have power to issue such directions to protect the interests of a breeder against any abusive act committed by any third party during the period between filing of application for registration and decision taken by the Authority on such application."

Thus, Section 24(5) makes it clear that Registrar has power to issue directions to protect the interests of a breeder against any abusive act committed by third party from the date of filing of application to date of registration. So what is protected is only the 'interest' of the breeder and not 'right' of the breeder. The 'interest' of the breeder from the date of filing of application to registration crystallizes into 'right' only on registration. An interest as such is an imperfect or inchoate right which cannot be classified as a right. Further unlike Trade Marks and Copyright, only registration under PPVFR Act 2001 confers and clothes the plant breeder with rights which can be enforced through civil and criminal proceedings. Hence, it is also clear that pre-registration a breeder has no right over his variety which can be protected under Section 24(5) of the Act from the date of filing of application to registration only after the registration of the variety. Hence on registration of the variety, in case a registered breeder's variety has been abused from the date of filing of application to date of registration and subsequently also. Then in such case the registered breeder has two options namely with regard to period between date of filing of application to date of grant of registration (date of notification in case of Extant Notified Varieties) the applicant upon registration of the variety can file an application under Section 24(5) of PPV&FR Act, 2001 to Registrar for issuing directions in respect of abuse of his variety and from the date of registration onwards the registered breeder can file a suit for infringement under Section 64 of PPVFR Act, 2001.

If a direction is passed against a third party under Section 24(5) of PPVFR Act, 2001 during the pendency of an application no right accrues to the applicant breeder till registration then subsequently after the passing of the direction