Delhi High Court
Phonographic Performance ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 March, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 02nd March, 2022
Pronounced on: 09th March, 2022
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 21/2021 & CM APPL.Nos. 28, 35, 17949 of 2021
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
+ W.P. (C)- IPD 41/2021 and CM No.27851/2021
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Presence : Mr.Rajiv Nayar and Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr Advocates with
Mr.Ankur Sangal, Mr.Saurabh Seth, Ms.Sucheta Roy,
Ms.Asavari Jain and Ms.Deboshree Mukherjee and
Ms.Trisha Nag, Advocates.
Mr.Harish V. Shankar, CGSC, Ms.S. Bushra Kazim and
Mr.Karan Chhibber, Advocates.
Mr.Jagdish Sagar, Advocate for R2/RMPL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. Both the above captioned writ petitions are filed with the following
prayers:-
W.P.(C)-IPD 21/2021
(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned
Order dated 25 May 2021 bearing no. F No. P-12-2/2018
IPR-VII passed by the Respondent;
(b) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or order, directing the Respondent to decide the
Petitioner's application for re-registration as a copyright
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
society in accordance with Rule 47 of the Copyright Rules,
2013;
W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2021
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the
Certificate of Registration dated 18 June 2021 granted to
the Respondent No. 2;
ii. direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to produce all records
in relation to the grant of the Impugned Registration to the
2. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioner "Phonographic Performance Limited", a company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred as PPL)
was a registered copyright society till the introduction of an amendment
in the Copyright Act in the year 2012. It introduced section 33(3A)
mandating "every copyright society already registered before the coming
into force of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 shall get itself
registered under this Chapter within a period of one year from the date
of commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012."
4. The petitioner being a copyright society was assigned copyright in
various sound recordings for communication to public in the areas of
public performance and broadcast. The Petitioner owned and/or
controlled the public performance rights of 350+ music companies, with
more than 3 million international and domestic sound recordings; being
an oldest and the largest copyright society in the country. The petitioner
represented about 80-90% of sound recordings ever created in the
country. The Petitioner served a useful public utility of acting as a "single
window" to various parties seeking license for authorised use of sound
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
recordings and bring together the copyright owners and users across
various parts of India for better convenience and better administration.
5. In the year 2012, the legal framework regarding copyright societies
underwent a sea change and the amended provisions of the Copyright
Act, especially Section 33(3A), required the existing copyright societies,
such as the Petitioner, to compulsorily re-register themselves under the
amended provisions within a period of one year from the date of
commencement of Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.
6. On 14th March 2013, the Copyright Rules, 2013 were introduced,
wherein as per Rule 47, a copyright society applying for re-registration,
had to file an application in Form IX as provided under the Rules within
a period of two months from the date of coming into force of the said
Rules. In view of the aforesaid, on 09.05.2013 (which is within one year
of the enactment of the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 and within two
months from the enactment of the Copyright Rules 2013), the Petitioner
filed an application for its re-registration as a copyright society.
7. Even though there was a compulsion and onus upon the respondent
to decide re-registration application within two months, the Respondent
did not take any decision on the Petitioner's application for re-
registration for over a year, which greatly impacted the Petitioner's
ability to carry on its business. Therefore, in order to protect its business
and the rights of its members, the Petitioner began conducting its
business as a non-society and was compelled to file a request for the
withdrawal of its re-registration application on 20.05.2014, with an
intention to file an application for fresh registration at an appropriate
stage. However, vide its letter dated 20.11.2014, the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
categorically rejected the Petitioner's request for withdrawal stating the
Petitioner's application under Section 33(3A) of the Copyright Act was
still under consideration. The petitioner then started working on its
functioning and made a representation on 11.01.2018 before the
respondent, informing the respondent of the various positive initiatives
and developments undertaken by the petitioner towards its members and
licensees.
8. However, on 24.05.2021 the petitioner was shocked to receive a
non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the
Respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for re-registration as a
Copyright Society with an observation the petitioner's application dated
09.05.2013 stood withdrawn and its application dated 11.01. 2018 had
been filed belatedly as per the provisions of Section 33(3A) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner is filing the present petition, being
aggrieved of the order number F.No.P-12-2/2018 IPR-VII dated
25.05.2021 ("Impugned Order") passed by the respondent.
9. It is argued the observations made by the respondent in the
impugned order are completely erroneous, incorrect, unreasoned,
arbitrary, without application of mind and contrary to the principles of
natural justice. It is alleged the respondent has arrived at a conclusion
without considering and appreciating the complete facts and law and
passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand the argument of respondent No.1/UOI is two
folds viz a) the case put up by the petitioner in this petition was never put
up in the correspondences and he cannot seek the principle of
promissory estoppel against the Government as there was never any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
promise by the Government to accord consent for re-registration of the
petitioner's society as such application, filed in January 2018, was much
beyond the two months period as prescribed in the Rules; and b)
reference was made to Dange Committee Report enquiring about the
misdeeds of M/s.Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS),
another society and during the course of enquiry it was found some
directors of IPRS were common in the petitioner's society and since the
IPRS had made changes per recommendations of the Government, it was
re-registered.
11. Further the contention of respondent No.2/RMPL is three fold viz.
a) the petitioner though sought re-registration vide letter dated 2013, but
sought its withdrawal and hence its application automatically stood
surrendered. Even otherwise the petitioners were not desirous to continue
to function as a society as despite the Central Government declined to
accept their letter, the petitioner had actually withdrawn its application
for re-registration by its conduct since it started taking licenses from the
assignees / authors and started acting as authors for giving licenses to
various persons, hence to say that their application was pending is totally
frivolous; b) the Central Government was rather satisfied the petitioners
were mismanaging hence, it did not grant re registration and it was well
within its power under Section 33 (4) of the Copyright Act; and c) the
petitioners rather elected to act as assignees of the authors and hence
could not have claimed any lien over re-registration of its candidature as
once it had elected a position, it could not have changed its position to its
benefit if the registration was awarded to respondent No.2. Reference
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
was made to Karam Kapahi and Others vs. Lal Chand 2010 (4) SCC
753, wherein the Court held as under:
"53. In the old equity case of Streatfield Vs. Streatfield
(White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity, 9th Edition,
Volume I, 1928) this principle has been discussed in words
which are so apt and elegant that I better quote them:
"Election is the obligation imposed upon a party by Courts
of equity to choose between two inconsistent or alternative
rights or claims in cases where there is a clear intention of
the person from whom he derives one that he should not
enjoy both. Every case of election, therefore, presupposes a
plurality of gifts or rights, with an intention, express or
implied, of the party who has a right to control one or both
that one should be a substitute for the other. The party who
is to take has a choice, but he cannot enjoy the benefit of
both. The principle is stated thus in Jarman on Wills "That
he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt
the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its
provisions, and renouncing every right inconsistent with it"
(h). The principle of the doctrine of election is now well
settled."
In National Insurance Company vs. Mastan and Others 2006 (2)
SCC 641, the Court held as under:
"23. The 'doctrine of election' is a branch of 'rule of
estoppel', in terms whereof a person may be precluded by
his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to
speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would
have had. The doctrine of election postulates that when two
remedies are available for the same relief the aggrieved
party has the option to elect either of them but not both.
Although there are certain exceptions to the same rule but
the same has no application in the instant case."
12. Lastly it was argued the petitioners case falls under Rule 47(2) of
the Copyright Act, which deals with the re-registration and not Rule 49
and thus, even if opportunity of being heard was not granted then also it
did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It was argued there is,
hence, allow the petition or to remand the matter only on this Court. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
reliance is made to Dharmapal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (8) SCC 519:
"45. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles in mind, even
when we find that there is an infraction of principles of
natural justice, we have to address a further question as to
whether any purpose would be served in remitting the case
to the authority to make fresh demand of amount
recoverable, only after issuing notice to show cause to the
Appellant. In the facts of the present case, we find that such
an exercise would be totally futile having regard to the law
laid down by this Court in R.C. Tobacco (supra)."
13. It was argued a hyper technical view ought not be taken qua the
compliance of natural justice since no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner by not giving a hearing. Reference was also made to
K.L.Tripathi vs. State Bank of India 1984 (1) SCC 43.
14. It is argued no case is made for re-registration of the petitioner as a
Copyright Society as it never acted as a Copyright Society after giving its
letter of withdrawal in the year 2014; further there was no promise made
by the Government and lastly no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by
not affording them an opportunity of being heard as it was the
petitioner's own choice to become an owner of musical recordings and it
never on its own continued as a Copyright Society after 2013 despite
Government giving it's an opportunity, hence cannot seek setting aside of
impugned order.
15. It is argued the petitioner even filed an opposition to the
application dated 01.03.2018 for registration of respondent No.2 as a
Copyright Society but it did not disclose this fact in W.P.(C) No.21/2021
and when respondent No.2 was accorded registration only then it had
moved the second W.P.(C) No.41/2021 impleading respondent No.2.
16. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
17. Before proceeding further, let me take a look at the relevant
provisions of The Copyright Act and Rules made therein, as under:-
33. Registration of Copyright society.-- (1) No person or
association of persons shall, after coming into force of the
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 (38 of 1994) commence
or, carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in
respect of any work in which copyright subsists or in
respect of any other rights conferred by this Act except
under or in accordance with the registration granted under
sub-section (3):
Provided that an owner of copyright shall, in his individual
capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in
respect of his own works consistent with his obligations as
a member of the registered copyright society.
(3) The Central Government may, having regard to the
interests of the authors and other owners of rights under
this Act, the interest and convenience of the public and in
particular of the groups of persons who are most likely to
seek licences in respect of the relevant rights and the ability
and professional competence of the applicants, register
such association of persons as a copyright society subject
to such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Central Government shall not
ordinarily register more than one copyright society to do
business in respect of the same class of works.
(3A) The registration granted to a copyright society under
sub-section (3) shall be for a period of five years and may
be renewed from time to time before the end of every five
years on a request in the prescribed form and the Central
Government may renew the registration after considering
the report of Registrar of Copyrights on the working of the
copyright society under section 36:
Provided that the renewal of the registration of a
copyright society shall be subject to the continued
collective control of the copyright society being shared with
the authors of works in their capacity as owners of
copyright or of the right to receive royalty:
Provided further that every copyright society
already registered before the coming into force of the
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 shall get itself registered
under this Chapter within a period of one year from the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
date of commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act,
2012.
The Section 33A was introduced on 21.06.2012 and its second
proviso notes:-
Provided further that the [Appellate Board] may after
hearing the parties fix an interim tariff and direct the
aggrieved parties to make the payment accordingly
pending disposal of the appeal.
The Rules 44 & 47 notes:
44. Conditions for submission of application for
registration of copyright society.--(1) Any association of
persons, having an independent legal personality,
comprising seven or more authors and other owners of
rights (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") formed
for the purpose of carrying on the business of issuing or
granting licencees in respect of a right or set of rights in
specific categories of works may file with the Registrar of
Copyrights an application in Form VIII for submission to
the Central Government for grant of permission to carry on
such business and for its registration as a copyright
society. The Central Government may grant registration of
the society for a period of five years under sub-section (3A)
of section 33.
47. Application and conditions for re-registration or
renewal of existing copyright societies.--(1) A Copyright
society registered section 33 and desirous of carrying on
the business as a copyright society shall submit an
application for re-registration in Form-IX to the Registrar
of Copyrights within a period two months from the date of
Coming into force of these rules.
(2) A Copyright society registered under this chapter may
apply for renewal of its registration within a period of three
months before the expiry of its registration. The application
for such renewal shall be made to the Registrar of
Copyrights in Form-IX for submission to Central
Government for grant of permission to continue with its
business and the Central Government may renew the
registration of the society for a further period of five years
after considering the report of the Registrar of Copyrights
on the working of the copyright society."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
18. Further, second proviso to Rule 49 says:-
"49. Conditions for registration of a copyright society.--
(1) When an application for registration is submitted to the
Central Government through the Registrar of Copyrights,
that Government may, within a period of sixty days from
the date of its receipt by the Registrar of Copyrights either
register the applicant as a copyright society or, if--
(i) xxx
(ii) there exists another copyright society registered under
the Act for administering the same right or set of rights in
the specific categories of works and it is well functioning;
or
(iii) the Central Government has reason to believe that the
members of the applicant are not bona fide copyright
authors or other owners or they have not voluntarily signed
the instrument setting up the applicant and the application
for registration; or
(iv)the application is found to be incomplete in any respect,
reject the application:
Provided that no such application shall be rejected
without giving an opportunity of being heard to the
applicant.
xxxxx."
19. Per Rule 47 the petitioner gave an application for re-registration
within two months i.e. in May, 2013 but the appropriate government did
not decide such application within time and lingered it on one pretext or
the other for an year and since fate of rules was allegedly not clear hence
the petitioner allegedly sought withdrawal of its application. Admittedly,
such withdrawal was never allowed and hence the petitioner in the
intervening period acted as an owner of the Copyright users per proviso
to Section 33(1), and there was no illegality in it, as during the
intervening period the businesses and rights of its members need to be
protected.
20. It was vide letter dated 20.05.2014 respondent had rejected its
application for withdrawal stating interalia its application is still under
consideration and the petitioner may continue as a Copyright society in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
the interest of owners. The Government claimed such an application for
withdrawal was not even maintainable in the eyes of law. Only if the
withdrawal application of the petitioner was accepted by respondent no.1,
it could have applied for fresh registration, but since all these years its
letter of withdrawal was kept in abeyance by respondent no.1 itself,
hence it could not apply for fresh registration.
21. Admittedly, correspondence was exchanged between the parties
viz. letters of petitioner dated 11.01.2018, 09.03.2018 and of 06.12.2018,
to disclose its positive steps to make the petitioner fully compliant to all
necessary changes required by respondent no.1 to be undertaken by it.
Rather, per letter dated 31.12.2018 the Government required the
petitioner to submit an Action Taken Report on issues indicated in the
compliance letter, preferably to Rule 58 (8) and 65 of the Copyright Act.
The petitioner after making the changes, intimated the Government vide
its letter dated 21.01.2019 and thereafter also wrote letters dated
05.09.2019 and 23.10.2019 giving all compliances to the issues involved.
Such correspondences do show the Government kept the application of
re-registration filed by the petitioner alive all this time, pursuant to
which, the petitioner took steps for its re-registration as a Copyright
Society.
22. It is to be noted IPRS also filed its withdrawal application along
with that of petitioner and despite there being an enquiry pending against
it, yet it was allowed to be re-registered as a Copyright Society and
whereas the petitioner's request for re-registration was unceremoniously
rejected by the Government vide the impugned order. There was never
any enquiry pending against the petitioner's society. The letters of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
Government written to the petitioner rather clarify it was the Government
who had assured the petitioner of its application for re-registration not
being rejected.
23. The letter dated 20.11.2014 written to the Chairman of the
petitioner by respondent No.1 notes:
"Subject: Current status of PPL as a Registered
Copyright Society-matter regarding.
Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 20.05.2014
on the above subject and to say that the stand taken by you
in the letter in question is not acceptable to the Central
Government being not maintainable in the eyes of law.
2. The application dated 09.05.2013 for re-registration as a
registered Copyright Society filed by PPL u/s 33 (3A) of the
Copyright Act, 1957 is still under consideration of the
Central Government and no final decision has been taken
on it so far. Pending a final decision on it, the PPL may not
take an unilateral decision on its own to not to continue as
a Copyright Society as the interest of hundreds of right
owners who are members of PPL are involved herewith."
24. Even an Office Memorandum of the Copyright Division,
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, Government of India, dated 06.10.2016 notes:
" Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 6th October, 2016
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Current status of IPRS & PPL respectively as a
Copyright Society-Clarification regarding
It is stated hereby for general information that M/s Indian
Performing Rights Society Ltd. (IPRS) and M/s
Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) were registered as
Copyright Societies u/s 33 of the pre-amended Copyright
Act, 1957 for carrying out Copyright business in the field of
Musical & Literary works and Sound recording works
respectively. However, the said registration was over w.e.f.
21.06.2013 i.e. on e year from the date of enactment of the
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 on 21.06.2012. Both the
Societies have applied for re-registration before the
Central Government u/s 33 of the amended Act within the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
prescribed time limit and their request for re-registration
as Copyright Societies is under examination.
2. Since there were allegations of malpractices against the
IPRS, the Central Government has constituted an enquiry
against it, which is currently in progress."
25. A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2016
would show IPRS and petitioner, both filed applications for withdrawl
and there were allegations of mal-practices only against IPRS and not
against this petitioner and further both applications were admitted to be
filed in time and were under examination. All this was enough to give
legitimate expectation to the petitioner about pendency of its application
and governments intention to re-register it.
26. The stand of respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit is IPRS was
granted registration after an extensive enquiry and only upon successful
completion of all conditions, but, admittedly, there was never any
enquiry pending against petitioner and vide letter dated 31.12.2018
(Annexure-L), the Government only required three compliances from
petitioner and the petitioner answered those vide its letter dated
21.01.2019 (Annexure-M).
27. The arguments of the respondent no.2 viz., the petitioners never
wished to continue to work as a Copyright Society, hence sought
withdrawl cannot be accepted as firstly what prompted the petitioner to
move an application for withdrawl is not an issue at this stage and
secondly one only need to examine how the petitioner was made to
believe its application was under process and was being examined. It is to
be noted the petitioner had applied for the copyright society re-
registration immediately after the introduction of the copyright
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
amendment. It was working as an owner, because its application for re-
registration was pending, hence, petitioner had never chosen or elected
itself to work as an owner of the copyright and not as a society, but it was
because of the circumstances explained above.
28. Though it was argued by the respondent, proviso to Rule 49(1)
shall be applicable only to applications for registration and not to
applications for re-registration but where the petitioner was a registered
society prior to the amendment and where its application for re-
registration was in process the respondent no.1, being a quasi-judicial
authority, ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being
heard, especially in circumstances enumerated above.
29. It cannot be said, principles of natural justice would apply only to
cases of fresh registrations and not to applications for re-registration.
Admittedly there is no separate rule for hearing on applications for re-
registration and Rule 49 stipulates the condition only for registration but
it is equally true if an application for re-registration is rejected to pave
way to register another society, then this principle ought to be read in
Rule 47 (supra) and would squarely apply to applications for re-
registration. It is needless to mention the certificate granted to the IPRS
on its application for re-registration is too under Rule 49.
30. Thus the impugned order show there was sheer non-application of
mind by the competent authority in rejecting the application of the
petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard to it. Respondent
no.1 rather failed to decide the application on merits and dismissed it on
the premise, the petitioner filed fresh application only in June 2018,
which premise is wholly incorrect as the application dated June 2018 was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
never under, Form IX and rather was a letter given by the petitioner to
comply with issues involved. The impugned order is wholly silent qua
the correspondences exchanged between petitioner and respondent no.1
and to an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2016 which rather declared
the application was well within time.
31. Thus before passing the impugned order, respondent no.1 ought to
have considered a) rejection of the application of withdrawl; b) the office
memorandum of 2016 and c) correspondences between the year 2014 till
2018 revealing the application of petitioner was being processed at the
end of the Government and was alive lest there was no reason for
petitioner to correspond with the Government. These facts do not find
mention in the impugned order, hence it is bad in law and is set aside.
32. Now coming to second impugned order dated 18.06.2021, I may
first refer to an order dated 02.06.2021 passed in W.P.(C)5735/2021
wherein in para 8 it was directed as under:
"8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's
communication dated 20.05.2014 was expressly rejected by
the respondent vide its communication dated 20.11.2014,
and the subsequent correspondence between the parties
treating the petitioner's application as a live application,
the petitioner has made out a case for a limited ad interim
order. However, I am of the view that an order restraining
the respondent from processing any other application
would not be appropriate at this stage, particularly as no
other applicant is even a party before this Court. Suffice it
to clarify that, in the event the petitioner succeeds in the
present petition, its application for re-registration dated
09.05.2013 under Rule 47 of the Rules would stand revived,
and would have to be examined on its own merits. This
position will be borne in mind by the respondent, and the
respondent shall not take any action inconsistent with this
position during the pendency of the present petition. In the
event the respondent is considering any other application
for registration in the interim, the applicant will also be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
informed of the pendency of this petition and the contents of
this order."
33. The respondent No.1, while granting the registration to the RMPL/
respondent No.2, had completely ignored the order passed by this Court
in WP No. 21/2021, wherein this Court while granting the ad-interim stay
to the petitioner, clarified the respondent No. 1/ Government would have
to keep in mind that in case the petitioner succeeded in the present Writ
Petition, its 2013 re-registration application would stand revived, and
directed the respondent No.1 to not take any steps inconsistent with the
said position during the pendency of the writ petition.
34. The respondent No.1 has not considered if the petitioner's re-
registration application gets revived, it may not get the registration on the
ground as envisaged in Section 33 (3) and Rule No.49, which says only
one copyright society would be registered for administering the rights
relating to same class of work i.e. sound recording.
35. If the respondent No.2/ RMPL registration is not set-aside, the
same would irreversibly prejudice the petitioner's chances for registration
as a copyright society, unless the Government consider giving
registration to two societies though, per Rule 49 of the Copyright Rules,
the registration of another copyright society for the same class of works
is an express ground for rejection of a subsequent application.
36. The respondent No. 1, after failing to act upon the petitioner's
application for re-registration as a Copyright Society for 9 years and the
respondent No. 2/RMPL's application for registration as a copyright
society for 3 years, proceeded in great haste to register the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
No.2 as a copyright society within 15 days of the interim order passed in
the first Writ Petition. There was no reason for the respondent No. 1 to
grant the impugned registration to the respondent No.2 in such a hurry.
37. If the first writ petition is allowed, the second writ petition would
have to be allowed as a corollary, or in view of the order dated
02.06.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)-IPD No.21/2021, if the said
Writ is allowed, the petitioner's application for re-registration would
stand revived, and hence the order granting RMPL registration as a
copyright society would have to be set aside as RMPL's application for
registration was subsequent in time to the petitioner's application.
38. Thus in view of above, impugned orders dated 25.05.2021 and
18.06.2021 both are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider
the application of the petitioner for re-registration on merits, as being
filed in time. The respondent No.1 is expected to undertake this whole
exercise within a reasonable time and the outcome be communicated to
the petitioner.
39. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed in terms of above.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MARCH 09, 2022
DU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA
LAKSHMI DOBHAL
Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:58
