IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that Senior Examiners can exercise quasi-judicial powers to reject Trade Mark applications if duly authorized, and must provide reasoned orders in compliance with statutory requirements.

ORDER :

(Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.3364 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 passed in Trade Mark Application No.3494810 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the status of petitioner's Trade Mark Application No.3494810 into the e-register of pending trade mark applications and re-post the same for Hearing under Rule 115 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017, either before the Assistant or Deputy Registrar, to hear the submissions to be made by the petitioner/Trade Mark applicant or on their behalf in accordance with Sec.128 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in order to pass 'speaking' or reasoning' order under Sec.18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.3366 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Trade Mark Application No.3579998 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the status of Trade Mark Application No.3579998 into the e-register of pending applications and re-post the same for Hearing under Rule 115 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017, either before the Assistant or Deputy Registrar, to hear the submissions to be made by the petitioner/Trade Mark applicant or on their behalf in accordance with Sec.128 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in order to pass 'speaking' or reasoning' order under Sec.18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.10461 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 18.05.2020 passed in Trade Mark Application No.3950632 on the file of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to restore the status of Trade Mark Application No.3950632 into the e-register of pending applications and re-post the same for Hearing under Rule 115 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017, either before the Assistant or Deputy Registrar, to hear the submissions to be made by the petitioner/Trade Mark applicant or on their behalf in accordance with Sec.128 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in order to pass 'speaking' or reasoning' order under Sec.18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, within a time frame as may be fixe0d by this Court.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.15279 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed in Trade Mark Application No.4512449 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to restore the e-status of Trade Mark Application No.4512449 prior to the said date 12.11.2021 in the E-Register of Trade Marks in order to re-post the same before such other officers designated and suffixed with appellation of 'Registrar' prescribed and employed under Sec.3(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for passing further orders under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)

In each of these writ petitions, the order passed by the Senior Examiner concerned is challenged on the ground that such Senior Examiner is not empowered to reject an application for registration of a Trade Mark. Since a common legal issue arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, they are considered and disposed of by this common order.

2. Oral arguments on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.3364 & 3366 of 2020 were addressed by Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel; and for the petitio