R. Balasubramanian, J.

The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis – a foreign company represented by its Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by its power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No.1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P.No.1/2007 came to be filed in that writ petition seeking to delete the prayer for a direction to the Patent Controller to allow the application and it was accordingly ordered. Therefore as on date in t