M/S Sai Agrotech F.M.D. (Farm ... vs The Union Of India, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8647 Bom

                                                                                                                            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

wp.6324.16

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

wp.6324.16

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

wp.6324.16

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