(L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8461/2020, decided on September 2, 2021
Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti ______ Petitioner;
v.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chennai and Others _____________________________________________ Respondent(s).
(With applns for exemption from filing c/c of impugned judgment, exemption from filing affidavit. permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures)
With
SLP(C) No. 8529/2020 (XII)
(With applns for exemption from filing c/c of impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures, exemption from filing O.T. intervention application)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8461/2020; WP No. 9564/2016; and SLP(C) No. 8529/2020 (XII)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Respondent No. 2, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), filed an application before respondent No. 3 namely, the Assistant Registrar of the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai to register ‘Basmati’ as a Geographical Indication (GI) in Class 30 under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (‘GI Act’) (parties identified herein is as per the array of parties in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8461 of 2020). In the said application, APEDA claimed 5 States in their entirety, i.e., Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and parts of two States, i.e., Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, as “traditionally Basmati cultivating areas” in India. The said application was accepted and published by the GI Registry in the GI Journal No. 34 on 31.05.2010 inviting objections to the acceptance, if any, from third parties under the GI Act. Oppositions were raised by the petitioners in these special leave petitions on the ground that APEDA had failed to include 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh in its GI application as Basmati growing areas. The said oppositions were filed under Section 14 of the GI Act. The petitioners filed applications under Section 12 of the GI Act separately on 26.04.2013 on the ground that demarcation of the claimed areas by APEDA in their GI application was vague, over broad, unscientific and contrary to the requirements of the GI Act.
2. On 31.12.2013, the Assistant Registrar, GI held that APEDA had failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of clear, specific and reasoned demarcation of actual Basmati-cultivating areas. APEDA was directed to identify the actual cultivated area and refile the GI application for Basmati within a period of 60 days.
3. In the appeal filed by APEDA, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board held that APEDA was entitled to get the GI tag for Basmati rice in respect of the areas and regions specified in the GI application made to the Assistant Registrar, who was directed to proceed with the registration and issue the certification of registration within a period of four weeks. In relation to the inclusion of 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh, IPAB set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, with a direction to consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any observations made in the order dated 05.02.2016. On 15.02.2016, GI registration certificate was issued by the Assistant Registrar to APEDA in respect of ‘Basmati’ under Class 30, as of 26.11.2008. During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016 filed before the High Court by the petitioners against the IPAB order, a consent order was passed on 17.02.2016 wherein the High Court was of the opinion that over-inclusion of areas in the States forming part of the APEDA GI application needed to be considered in the said writ petitions. By a subsequent order dated 16.08.2016, the High Court observed that the Assistant Registrar had to commence and conclude the proceedings relating to the objections filed by the petitioners for inclusion of 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. Thereafter, on 15.03.2018, the Assistant Registrar rejected the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the 13 districts of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of grant of GI for Basmati. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti filed Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018 and these writ petitions are pending consideration before the High Court of Madras. The High Court disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016 by judgment dated 27.02.2020 by directing the parties to raise all submissions in the pending Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018. With the said observations, the High Court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present special leave petitions.
6. After hearing Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 8529 of 2020, Mr. Sai Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 8461 of 2020, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in not adjudicating the issue relating to the over-inclusion of areas in the States forming part of the APEDA GI application. By the interim orders dated 17.02.2016 and 16.08.2016, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the IPAB which remanded the matter pertaining to inclusion of 13 districts of Madhya Pradesh to the Assistant Registrar. In the said orders, the High Court made it clear that the over-inclusion of the areas in other states of APEDA’s GI application would be considered in Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016. However, the High Court in the impugned order observed that the petitioners did not have any grievance relating to the over-inclusion of areas in the other states forming part of the GI application. On such finding, the High Court permitted the petitioners to raise all grounds in the pending writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018. The said writ petitions pertain to the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar rejecting the contention of the petitioners for inclusion of 13 districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of the Basmati GI. The petitioners cannot raise the dispute pertaining to over-inclusion of areas in the other states in those pending writ petitions.
7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved these matters, we set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27.02.2020 and remand the matters back for fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. All questions are left open. The interim order passed on 17.02.2016 by the High Court which was extended by this Court on 05.10.2020 will be in operation till the disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 5798 of 2016 and 9564 of 2016.
8. In view of the importance of these matters, the High Court is directed to dispose of these writ petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from today.
9. The special leave petitions stand disposed of, with the above observations. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8461/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-02-2020 in WP No. 9564/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti.….Petitioner(s)
v.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chennai & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(With applns for exemption from filing c/c of impugned judgment, exemption from filing affidavit. permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 8529/2020 (XII)
(With applns for exemption from filing c/c of impugned judgment, permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures, exemption from filing O.T. intervention application)
Date : 02-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohit Goel, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Goel, Adv.
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Goel, Adv.
Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Akansha Sisodia, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
Ms. V. Keerthana, Adv.
Ms. C. Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. Respondent No. 2, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), filed an application before respondent No. 3 namely, the Assistant Registrar of the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai to register ‘Basmati’ as a Geographical Indication (GI) in Class 30 under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (‘GI Act’) (parties identified herein is as per the array of parties in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8461 of 2020). In the said application, APEDA claimed 5 States in their entirety, i.e., Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and parts of two States, i.e., Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, as “traditionally Basmati cultivating areas” in India. The said application was accepted and published by the GI Registry in the GI Journal No. 34 on 31.05.2010 inviting objections to the acceptance, if any, from third parties under the GI Act. Oppositions were raised by the petitioners in these special leave petitions on the ground that APEDA had failed to include 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh in its GI application as Basmati growing areas. The said oppositions were filed under Section 14 of the GI Act. The petitioners filed applications under Section 12 of the GI Act separately on 26.04.2013 on the ground that demarcation of the claimed areas by APEDA in their GI application was vague, over broad, unscientific and contrary to the requirements of the GI Act.
11. On 31.12.2013, the Assistant Registrar, GI held that APEDA had failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of clear, specific and reasoned demarcation of actual Basmati-cultivating areas. APEDA was directed to identify the actual cultivated area and refile the GI application for Basmati within a period of 60 days.
12. In the appeal filed by APEDA, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board held that APEDA was entitled to get the GI tag for Basmati rice in respect of the areas and regions specified in the GI application made to the Assistant Registrar, who was directed to proceed with the registration and issue the certification of registration within a period of four weeks. In relation to the inclusion of 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh, IPAB set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, with a direction to consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any observations made in the order dated 05.02.2016. On 15.02.2016, GI registration certificate was issued by the Assistant Registrar to APEDA in respect of ‘Basmati’ under Class 30, as of 26.11.2008. During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016 filed before the High Court by the petitioners against the IPAB order, a consent order was passed on 17.02.2016 wherein the High Court was of the opinion that over-inclusion of areas in the States forming part of the APEDA GI application needed to be considered in the said writ petitions. By a subsequent order dated 16.08.2016, the High Court observed that the Assistant Registrar had to commence and conclude the proceedings relating to the objections filed by the petitioners for inclusion of 13 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
13. Thereafter, on 15.03.2018, the Assistant Registrar rejected the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the 13 districts of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of grant of GI for Basmati. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti filed Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018 and these writ petitions are pending consideration before the High Court of Madras. The High Court disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016 by judgment dated 27.02.2020 by directing the parties to raise all submissions in the pending Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018. With the said observations, the High Court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016.
14. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present special leave petitions.
15. After hearing Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 8529 of 2020, Mr. Sai Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Special Leave Petition No. 8461 of 2020, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in not adjudicating the issue relating to the over-inclusion of areas in the States forming part of the APEDA GI application. By the interim orders dated 17.02.2016 and 16.08.2016, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the IPAB which remanded the matter pertaining to inclusion of 13 districts of Madhya Pradesh to the Assistant Registrar. In the said orders, the High Court made it clear that the over-inclusion of the areas in other states of APEDA’s GI application would be considered in Writ Petition Nos. 9564 of 2016 and 5798 of 2016. However, the High Court in the impugned order observed that the petitioners did not have any grievance relating to the over-inclusion of areas in the other states forming part of the GI application. On such finding, the High Court permitted the petitioners to raise all grounds in the pending writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 6857 of 2018 and 7030 of 2018. The said writ petitions pertain to the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar rejecting the contention of the petitioners for inclusion of 13 districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of the Basmati GI. The petitioners cannot raise the dispute pertaining to over-inclusion of areas in the other states in those pending writ petitions.
16. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues involved these matters, we set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27.02.2020 and remand the matters back for fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. All questions are left open. The interim order passed on 17.02.2016 by the High Court which was extended by this Court on 05.10.2020 will be in operation till the disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 5798 of 2016 and 9564 of 2016.
17. In view of the importance of these matters, the High Court is directed to dispose of these writ petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from today.
18. The special leave petitions stand disposed of, with the above observations. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
