wp.6324.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 6324/2016
* M/s Sai Agrotech F.M.D.
(Farm Machinery Division)
Through its Proprietor
Shri Devanand Raoji Dudhe
Aged about 47 years
having its office at Plot No.38,
Dardanagar, Yavatmal. .. PETITIONER
versus
1) The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Agriculture (GOI)
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
2) The Director General
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Department of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
3) The Director
National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM)
LBS Building, PUSA Campus
New Delhi. .. RESPONDENTS
...............................................................................................................................................
Mr. R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Nitin Lambat, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3
................................................................................................................................................
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 13th November, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:43:20 ::: wp.6324.16 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard finally with consent, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.
2. Application for license submitted by petitioner for 'Light Trap' has been rejected on 6th July, 2017. The rejection is after directions by this Court on 13th June, 2016 in Writ Petition No.30/2016.
3. Adv.Ghuge submits that request for license has been rejected for reasons which are unsustainable. Hence in reply-affidavit, respondent nos.2 and 3 have come up with entirely different story. According to him, grant of license to petitioner, in this backdrop, cannot be objected to.
4. Adv. Chaudhari submits that he appears for respondent no.1 only and respondent nos.2 and 3 have engaged their own counsel.
5. Perusal of impugned communication dated 6/11th July, 2016 shows that request for licence has not been acceded as license has been already issued on exclusive basis as per India Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) guidelines. It is further observed that National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM) cannot certify light trap developed by petitioner-firm as they appears similar to one developed by NCIPM which has ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:43:20 ::: wp.6324.16 3 already filed patent for light trap developed by it and infringement of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) is not allowed. It has also observed that if petitioner desires to take license of further technologies developed by NCIPM they can do so. This communication or order is sent by one Shri D.B. Ahuja.
6. In reply-affidavit, respondent no.2,through Vikas Kumar Kanwar working as Scientist and incharge, has pointed out that the said respondents have, with a view to develop technology entered into some arrangement and sponsored research by M/s Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Limited and M/s Fine Trap India, Yavatmal (MS). It is submitted that these technologies were upscaled based on the collaborating Contract Research Project funded by these firms. The ownership of Intellectual property generated will be of ICAR.
7. Thus, this communication shows that the technology is fully not developed and research is still going on by firms, namely, M/s Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Limited and M/s Fine Trap India, for its upscaling. This cannot be the reason to deny license to petitioner. Merely because respondent nos.2 and 3 have got an arrangement with private firms, request of petitioner could not have been declined. Upscaling of technology developed could have been compared after it is made available for registration with appropriate authority. No monopoly can be created in favour of these two firms and ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:43:20 ::: wp.6324.16 4 healthy competition cannot be avoided.
8. It is also apparent that the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
9. In this situation, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the Writ Petition.
10. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2017 01:43:20 :::