The court may exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution on grounds of equity to allow an inventor to demonstrate a prototype, ensuring that a potential invention is not wasted due to procedural rejections.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of second respondent dated 16.06.2025, dismissing the review petition filed by petitioner and for a direction to second respondent to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to take a decision on the patent application submitted by petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The case of petitioner is that he filed a patent application titled as ‘Solar Supplemental Power Source’. This application was filed before the first respondent on 05.08.2020. The same was acted upon and examination report was also filed. Ultimately, the second respondent scheduled the hearing and by an order dated 07.11.2024, the application came to be rejected since it did not meet the requirement under Section 3(a) of the Patents Act, 1970 [for brevity ‘the Act’] and therefore, there

was no need to proceed further under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.

4. The petitioner filed an application seeking review of the order passed by second respondent under Section 77(1)(f) and 77(1)(g) of the Act r/w Rules 130(1) and 130(2) of the Patents Rules. Along with the application, the petitioner also filed a document titled ‘Status for Patent Application’ which contained the link to the video clips of the accomplished implementations and links to access prototype available for demonstration.

5. The grievance of petitioner is that second respondent even without fixing any hearing date and without affording opportunity to the petitioner proceeded to reject the review application by order dated 16.06.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and materials available on record.

7. The main ground urged on the side of petitioner is that the patent rights are valuable rights and the rejection or refusal of the patent application cannot take place without affording sufficient opportunity of fair hearing to petitioner. According to petitioner, the review application was rejected without affording any opportunity to petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that even on a cursory reading of the order passed in the review, it is seen that repeated opportunities were given to petitioner and in spite of the same, the petitioner was not able to make out a ground for review and therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order passed by second respondent in the review application.

9. On a careful reading of the order dated 07.11.2024, it is seen that the agent of the petitioner was claiming that the invention discloses a prime mover, preferably an electro-mechanical device with an end goal for generating electricity, which can operate even when the sun light based solar energy is not available. It comprises a wheel structure imparted with multiple arms and arms loads along with the feeder box to cycle through the side tank. The feeder box regulates the arm movement

within the feeder box using the treaded guides. Due to the buoyant and gravitational forces the unbalanced arm loads cause the imbalance in the wheel structure and rotate the entire wheel structure along the guided track. This prime mover can be used primarily for generating electricity by connecting it to an electrical generator.

10. The second respondent found that the so-called invention appears to be an invention, which is frivolous or which claims anything obviously contrary to the well established natural laws