M/S.Sahee Leathers vs. The Registrar Of Geographical

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sahee Leathers, an authorised user of Geographical Indication No. 95, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner's grievance was that the Registrar of Geographical Indications had not yet decided an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. This application sought to decide the maintainability of Rectification Application No. 1 of 2017, filed by third parties, as a preliminary issue. The petitioner contended that the Rectification Application was not maintainable under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The interlocutory application, bearing Diary No. 502/2019, had been filed but remained undecided. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to hear and decide this interlocutory application on merits.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer was innocuous, seeking only a direction for the timely disposal of their interlocutory application concerning the maintainability of a rectification application. The Court noted that the respondent had indicated that the application would be taken up in due course. Citing a previous order in a similar writ petition (W.P.(MD) No. 33496 of 2018), the Court found it appropriate to issue a direction for expeditious disposal. The Court directed the respondent to take up the interlocutory application (Diary No. 502/2019) for hearing, afford a reasonable opportunity to both sides, and decide it on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks. Crucially, the Court also directed that the main Rectification Application No. 1 of 2017 shall not be decided on merits unless the interlocutory application for maintainability is decided first. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed as the matter pertained to the Geographical Indications Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Registrar of Geographical Indications to hear and decide the petitioner's interlocutory application (Diary No. 502/2019) seeking to decide the maintainability of Rectification Application No. 1 of 2017 as a preliminary issue, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Rectification Application filed by third parties was not maintainable under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. They contended that a decision on the maintainability of this application was a prerequisite before proceeding with the main rectification. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in a similar case (W.P.(MD) No. 33496 of 2018) where a similar direction was issued. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that the interlocutory application, having been given a diary number, would be taken up in due course and decided on merits.