JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is a Japanese national. He applied for the registration of a patent with the 1st respondent on 1.2.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed an application for a patent on 1.7.2005, in Singapore, for the same invention. Following the examination of the application, the same was published on 19.9.2008 and the first examination report was generated on 11.12.2012. The first examination report was received by the writ petitioner on 14.12.2012. The writ petitioner had a statutory period of 12 months from the date of the first examination report to submit his response to the examination report in terms of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Rule 24-B of the Patent Rules, 2003. The writ petitioner submitted his response to the first examination report on 13.12.2013 by Ext.P4 dated 26th March 2014. The writ petitioner was informed that his application had been deemed as abandoned as he had not responded within the time statutorily specified. It is challenging this communication that this writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that Ext.P.1, which is the First Examination Report, though dated 11.12.2012, was received by him only on 14.12.2012 and that the time period for filing a response should be calculated from 14.12.2012 and not from 11.12.2012. He also submits that notwithstanding the above, by way of abundant caution the writ petitioner had filed Ext.P.2 request for extension of time within the period of 12 months even if the said period is counted from 11.12.2012, the date on which Ext.P.1 First Examination Report was issued. He, therefore, states that, at any rate, his application could not have been deemed as abandoned. Though the writ petitioner took up the matter with the 1st respondent, he has been issued with Ext.P.6 reply informing him that the time for submitting response expired on 11.12.2013 and further that his request for extension of time was not in the prescribed form and therefore that it could not have been considered.

3. Ms.Krishna, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that Exts.P.4 and P.6 communications are in accordance with law and cannot be faulted in terms of the provisions contained in Patents Act, 1970. The learned counsel would also refer to a judgment of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court reported in Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India; 2011(46)PTC 122 (Delhi) to contend that, considering the subject governed by the Patents Act, 1970, the timelines prescribed therein are mandatory and cannot be deviated from in any manner. It is, therefore, contended that the response to Ext.P.1 having been filed only on 13.12.2013, the application was to be treated as abandoned in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed before me that the first examination Report was received by the writ petitioner only on 14.12.2012. The only reasonable interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Patent Act and the Rules would be to count the period of 12 months prescribed therein from the date on which Ext.P.1 was received by the writ petitioner, in which event he had time till 14.12.2013 to submit his response. It is also not disputed that the response was actually submitted by the writ petitioner on 13.12.2013. If that be so, it is within a period of 12 months from 14.12.2012. Though the ratio in Nippon Steel Corporation (supra) is unexceptionable, in the view that I have taken of the matter, the ratio of that case is not applicable in the facts of this case.

5. Further, even if the date of Ext.P.1 was taken as the relevant date for the purpose of determining the aforesaid 12 month period, it was open to the writ petitioner to seek an extension of time for submitting his response. On 10.12.2013, the writ petitioner had admittedly filed Ext.P.2 requ