T.Deendayal v. The Union of India
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Jan 2005
- Bench
- M NARAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Patents Act, 1970 s. 48
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 615 of 2005 Between: 1 T.Sudhaker, S/o. T.Deendayal, R/o.10933 Caminito Alvarez, San Diego, CA-92126, USA. Rep.by his younger brother and G.P.A.Holder, T.Raghunath, S/o T.Deendayal, R/o.flat No.203, Sarada Apartments, 3-4-9,Barkatpura, Hyd. 2 T.Raghunath, S/o. T.Deendayal, R/o.flat No.203, Sarada Apartments, 3-4-9,Barkatpura, Hyd. AND ..... PETITIONER(S) The Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, declaring that the patents (Amendment) ordinance, 2004, insofar as it pertains to product patenting of life saving medicines as illegal and void and / or pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent : MR.B. Narayana Reddy (Addl. SC FOR CG) The Court made the following Oral Order : (per Sri Devinder Gupta, CJ) We cannot permit this type of petition as “Public Interest Litigation”, which was filed challenging the validity of the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004. In no part of the petition, it is shown that which part of the Ordinance is being questioned by the petitioners. When the petition was taken up by us, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he is only confining his submissions in so far as Section 36 of the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004, as it deleted Section 48 of the Patents Act,
1970. Even such submission is misconceived inasmuch as Section 36 of the Ordinance has deleted the proviso of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 and not Section 48. Even what is the effect of deleting the said proviso is not shown in the writ petition. Petitioners, in fact, have expressed their apprehension that by bringing the Ordinance into force, prices of life saving drugs are likely to be increased. It is only a hypothetical writ petition based on pure imagination, which cannot be permitted to be entertained to question the legality and validity of the Ordinance without the affected person being party to the said writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Date: 31st January, 2005 _____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ _______________________ M. NARAYANA REDDY,J Pnb To
The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. Two C.D copies.
The Officer concerned, Public Interest Litigation Cell, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
The Secretary, A.P.State Legal Advisory Board, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
The Secretary to Government of A.P., Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Patents Act, 1970 — s. 48.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Jan 2005. The bench was M NARAYANA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.