Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Shri K.T. Dave for respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri Shakeel Qureshi for respondents No. 2 and learned Advocate Shri Harshadray Dave for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 - Intellectual Property Appellate Board (for short 'the Board') dated 22-4-2014 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

Heard Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General and Sr. Counsel, appearing with learned Advocate Shri H.S. Tolia for the petitioners, learned Advocate Shri K.T. Dave for respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri Shakeel Qureshi for respondent No. 2 and learned Counsel Shri S.K. Bansal appearing with learned Advocate Shri H.A. Dave for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. Learned Advocate General and Sr. Counsel Shri Kamal Trivedi referred to the papers and the impugned order at Annexure-A. He referred to the background of the case and submitted that there are two groups and there were some disputes for which a family settlement was entered into culminating into S.B. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 2011 and connected matters before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur which passed an order, which is produced with the paper-book at Exh. VII. He submitted that an application with Form TM-24 was submitted before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad dated 27-9-2010 and the order came to be passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad dated 27-7-2012. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 group, who were the partners having interest in M/s. Vijay Industries, a partnership firm, retired and Form TM-24 was filed. Against this an appeal was preferred by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 before respondent No. 1 - Board along with an application for condonation of delay and the impugned order passed in the said application for condonation of delay is produced at Annexure-A.

3. Learned Advocate General and Sr. Counsel Shri Kamal Trivedi emphasized that as could be seen from the order, the procedure adopted is curious and novel. He emphasized that when such an application for condonation of delay is filed, it is required to be heard and decided on the basis whether the explanation for sufficient cause is made out. He referred to the details of the dates and submitted that the appeal was moved before the Bench at Chennai and the petitioners here had to rush there praying for time to reply to such application for condonation of delay. However, without granting sufficient opportunity in compliance of the rules of natural justice, the impugned order came to be passed disregarding the procedure and the principles of natural justice. Learned Advocate General and Sr. Counsel Shri Kamal Trivedi submitted referring to the order at Annexure-A, that it has been specifically observed in the order:

"At the outset, we are constrained to state that in respect of the knowledge of the proceedings are concerned, we are inclined to take up the issue only at the time of hearing the application for interim relief and not at this stage......."

4. Learned Advocate General and Sr. Counsel Shri Kamal Trivedi submitted that, thus, without considering the aspect of sufficient cause, whether explanation or justification is made out for condonation of delay, the application is granted and it is stated that it can be considered at the time of hearing of the application for interim relief, meaning thereby, effectively the delay is condoned without providing any opportunity to the petitioners. He submitted that it is like putting the cart before the horse inasmuch as sufficient cause could be examined at a later stage and the delay is condoned first. He emph