( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union of India through the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Registrar) to treat the evidence filed by respondent No. 3 the wellcome Foundation Ltd. , by way of two affidavits in the opposition proceedings to the petitioners application for registration of trade mark as taken off from the record and to treat the opposition proceedings bearing No. AMD-916 as abandoned under Rule 53 (2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30-9-1997 passed by the Assistant Registrar disposing of the interlocutory petition filed by respondent No. 3 herein taking the affidavits and the documents filed by respondent No. 3 on record as further evidence in support of the opposition proceedings. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the petition was taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of the present petition, as averred by the petitioner, are as under : the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical and Medicinal preparations for over two decades. The petitioner made application for registration of its Trade Mark VIREX on 27-1-1987 in Class 5 in respect of Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations. In the Trade Journal dated 1-1-1995 the petitioners application for registration of aforesaid trade mark was advertised before acceptance. On 6-4-1995 respondent No. 3 filed its notice of opposition to the registration of the trade mark applied for by the petitioner, as provided for in Rule 51 of the rules. On 10-10-1995 the petitioner filed counterstatement under Rule 52 of the Rules and a copy of the same was served by the assistant Registrar on the Trade Marks Attorney of respondent No. 3. The copy of the counter-statement was sent by the Assistant Registrar alongwith letter dated 13-11-1995 but it was received by respondent No. 3 on 22-11-1995. Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed an application on 15-1-1996 for three months extension to adduce their evidence in support of their opposition as contemplated by Rule 53 of the Rules. The application was granted by the Assistant Registrar and the time for adducing evidence was extended upto 13-4-1996 as per communication dated January 18, 1996 of the Assistant Registrar. Again extension was sought for by respondent No. 3 on 16-4-1996, which was granted on June 4, 1996 and respondent No. 3 was granted time to adduce evidence upto 13-7-1996. Respondent No. 3 again applied for extension of time on 5-7-1996 mentioning therein the grounds for praying for extension. The time was sought upto 12-9-1996 to adduce evidence. In the meantime, on 13-7-1996 the Advocate of opponent No. 3 forwarded an affidavit of Mr. Kasim master, Constituted Attorney of respondent No. 3 to the Asstt. Registrar alongwith letter stating that the affidavit of Mr. Kasim Master was tendered as part evidence in support of opposition and that further evidence in support of opposition will also be filed shortly. The said affidavit was received by the Registry and by letter dated 21-8-1996 the Assistant Registrar invited the attention of the petitioners Attornery to Rule 54 requiring the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the petitioners application for registration. Again on 18-9-1996 the Attorney of respondent No. 3 filed application for extension for two months time to adduce evidence in support of their opposition as further time was required for collecting evidence of bills, invoices, literature of zovirax - a life-saving drug and to collect worldwide sales figures with documentary evidence. It appears that no action or decision was taken by the assistant R