High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 can't be exercised on mere apprehensions without solid grounds.

*****

COMMON ORDER

All these writ petitions have been filed to direct the first respondent to adjourn the oppositions filed by the petitioner against the second respondent’s trade mark Application Nos.863125, 838249, 819559 and 817310 sine-die awaiting the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commercial IP Suit No.296 of 2021 and to consolidate the Opposition Nos.MAS-737983, MAS-721701, MAS-721066 and MAS-108630 for the purpose of hearing and adjudication.

2. When these writ petitions came up for final hearing on

29.01.2026, this Court passed the following order: “All these writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the 1^st respondent to keep the opposition filed by the petitioner Association against the 2 nd respondent’s trade mark application pending, awaiting the final judgment of the Bombay High Court in the pending Commercial IP Suit No.296 of 2021.

2.It is seen from records that the suit was filed in the year 1987 and it has been renumbered in the year 2021 and it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the suit is now at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the defendant. Apart from that, from the year 2018 onwards, the 1st respondent is adjourning the hearing every time for one year and it has taken place till now. Thus, for the last eight years, the 1st respondent has thought it fit, not to proceed further with the hearing, based on the opposition given by the petitioner.

3.In view of the same, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent shall take instructions from the 1st respondent, as to whether the application can be adjourned sine-die, till a final judgment is delivered by the Bombay High Court.

4.Post all these writ petitions under the caption “for orders” on 12.02.2026.”

3. The matter was once again listed for hearing on 12.02.2026 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

“Learned Senior Panel counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has taken into consideration the case pending before the Bombay High Court and the matter is being adjourned from time to time. Therefore, the first respondent will take a call as to whether the matter is going to be adjourned till the Bombay High Court takes a decision or the first respondent is going to process the application by considering the opposition submitted by the petitioner.

2. In the considered view of this Court, the application was submitted by the second respondent during the years 1998- 1999 for two word marks and two label marks. The oppositions were filed by the petitioner and from the year 2018 onwards, the proceedings are adjourned once in a year and it has continued till this year. Thus, the first respondent has not chosen to take a decision on the opposition filed by the petitioner for the last eight years. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot proceed further with these writ petitions on the mere assumption that the first respondent is going to decide the opposition filed by the petitioner. Even assuming that the first respondent is going to deal with the application and the opposition, the first respondent will go strictly by the provisions of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which provides for prohibition of registration of geographical indication as a trademark. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the first respondent is not aware about the effect of the concerned provision. 3. This Court cannot pass orders in these writ petitions on mere apprehensions and surmises, more particularly, considering the fact that the first respondent has not thought it fit to deal with the opposition for nearly eight years. When this Court expressed its mind, learned counsel for petitioner sought