All India Defence Services ... vs Uoi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2312 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 10th April, 2012

+                         WP(C) NO.16789/2006

ALL INDIA DEFENCE SERVICES ADVOCATES
ASSOCIATION                                     ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. J.S. Manhas, Advocate

                                     Versus

UOI & ORS                                                  ..... Respondents
                          Through:      None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner All India Defence Services Advocates Association

claims to be an association of practicing advocates who have at some point

of time or the other served the defence forces. The petitioner in or about the

year 1999 applied to the respondent no.2 Registrar of Societies (ROS), Delhi

for being incorporated as a Society under the Societies Registration Act,

1860. The respondent no.2 ROS however vide its letter dated 22nd

December, 2000 to the respondent no.1 Ministry of Food and Consumer

Affairs, Government of India sought a clarification as to whether the name

of the petitioner attracted the provisions of para 7 of the Schedule of the

Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The

respondent no.1 Ministry of Food & Consumer Affairs vide its letter dated

14th May, 2001 informed the petitioner that the proposed name "All India

Defence Services Advocates Association" misleads the general public

indicating "serving Defence personnel" and directed the petitioner to take up

the matter with the respondent no.2 ROS for making suitable changes in the

name. The petitioner claims to have proposed the name of "All India

Defence Served Advocates Association" to the respondent no. 2 ROS and

upon receiving no response filed this petition impugning the refusal of

registration under the name aforesaid and seeking mandamus for registration

as a Society in the name of "All India Defence Services Advocates

Association".

2. Notice of the petition was issued; Bar Council of Delhi was also

impleaded as a party and notice issued thereto also. Counter affidavits have

been filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 and to which rejoinders have been

filed by the petitioner. None has appeared for the Bar Council of Delhi. The

counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the counter affidavits of the

respondents no. 1 and 2 have been perused.

3. The respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit has pleaded that it is

entrusted with the responsibility to examine whether any name or emblem

attracts the provisions of the Act aforesaid; that the name of the petitioner

was found to have the potential of misleading and confusing the general

public into believing that the organization has the patronage of Government

of India and thus to protect the public at large and the Government of India

from any such untoward usage the registration in the said name was refused.

It is further pleaded that any name containing the words "All India" cannot

be registered.

4. The petitioner in its rejoinder has controverted the stand of the

respondent no.1.

5. The respondent no.2 ROS has merely pleaded that in case of doubt

regarding any name it is required to obtain the clearance of the respondent

no.1 before registration.

6. The Act aforesaid was enacted to prevent the improper use of certain

emblems and names for professional and commercial purposes. Section 3

thereof prohibits use, inter alia of any name specified in the Schedule of the

Act or any imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central

Government. Para 7 of the Schedule of the said Act is as under:

"7. Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest -

(i) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or

(ii) connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by the Government under any law for the time being in force."

7. The reasoning of the respondent no.1 is not found to be perverse so as

to be interferable in exercise of powers of judicial review. On the contrary

the petitioner has been unable to show any need for insistence on registration

as a society with the said name only. The petitioner has also been unable to

show any prejudice or injury which it may suffer if adopts any other name.

The use of the words „All India‟ in conjunction with the words „Defence

Services‟ has the potential of mischief within the meaning of Para 7 of the

Schedule to the Act aforesaid.

8. No merit is thus found in the petition. The same is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J th APRIL 10 , 2012 „M‟