P.K.Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1 is the manufacturer of toilet preparations and registered proprietor in India of the following Trade Marks: "Trade Mark. Registration Number. Class Goods. WILLIAMS 517 3 Shaving Cream, Shaving powder, shaving, stick and liquid soap for shampoo purposes, liquid hair dressings, shaving soap, preparations for cleaning the teeth, toilet soap, cold cream, cosmetics, face power, toilet powder, toilet water and face washes. ESQUIRE 518 3 Brushless shaving cream and other shaving creams or soaps. CONTI & DESIGN 103429 3 Liquid shampoo, complexion cream and soaps, oils for the complexion. GLIDER 137240 3 Shaving cream. AQUA VELVA 137241 3 Face washes and after shaving preparations included in Class 3." On 1st January, 1964 an agreement in writing was entered into by and between the petitioners whereby the petitioner No. 1 granted to the petitioner No. 2 exclusive right and licence to manufacture, distribute and sell directly in India toilet preparations mentioned hereinbefore on certain conditions. One of those conditions was that the petitioner No. 2 would pay the petitioner No. 1 for the rights granted under the said agreement royalty on the products, on the basis of 1% of the amount of sales. In the said agreement it is provided that the petitioner No. 1 will furnish working formulae processes and methods for the manufacture of the products and shall provide such directions as to manufacture and finishing as may be necessary. The petitioner No. 2 would supply all raw materials for the manufacture of the products and all finishing materials including bottles and other containers, labels and cartons. On 19th August, 1964 both the petitioners jointly made 5 applications in the prescribed Form for registration of the petitioner No. 2 as the sole registered user under Section 49 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 whereupon the Registrar of the Trade Marks issued a notice on the petitioners why the Central Government should not issue directions to refuse the said applications on the ground that "the use of foreign brand name in the field of soaps, cosmetics and toilet preparations is not being encouraged now, more, when there is foreign exchange expenditure involved in any form, as this is sure to affect the sale of indigenous brands and thus affect the growth of indigenous Industries." The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice and stated that the petitioners have now agreed to waive the stipulation regarding 1 % royalty and as such there will be no involvement in the foreign exchange in the agreement and moreover no indigenous brands, inasmuch as, amongst other factors, the products would be manufactured in India with Indian materials. In spite of this explanation the respondent however refused to register the petitioner No. 2 as a registered user of the goods in question and thereby rejected the petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
(2.) Mr. Das on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order or direction refusing the registration of registered user is bad in law as the respondent considered extraneous matters in giving the direction. Secondly the order is discriminatory, inasmuch as, other persons in the same trade are given the registered user. Thirdly it is argued by Mr. Das that the order is not a speaking order and no reasons were given for the refusal to grant the registration.
(3.) Mr. Chakravorti on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contended that the order impugned is not a quasi judicial order at all and no detailed reasons need be given but still the order of refusal contains some reasons for refusal. The reasons stated therein are not extraneous as under Section 49 the authorities concerned had to consider the interest of general public. The refusal was made on the basis of general policy decision which is not amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further stated that the petitioner is not an indigenous company, inasmuch as, the petitioner No. 1 is a foreign company. It is argued that there was no discrimination and everybody including the petitioner was treated equally.;