DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails an order dated June 2, 2017 passed by the Controller of Patents.
(2.) The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the essential fact has not been considered by the authority concerned in passing the impugned order. He submits that, the petitioner has developed a better version of an existing product whose effect is far superior to those obtaining presently. This data was made available to the authority concerned. The authority did not discuss such data and has consequently arrived at an erroneous finding. He further submits that, although the impugned order is appealable under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1979, the present writ petition is maintainable. He points out the fact that, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board is not functional for more that a year due to unfilled vacancies of the Chairperson and the Member (Technical). He relies upon an unreported judgment of the Court dated February 3, 2015 rendered in W. P. 730 of 2006 (Poddar Dewki Ltd. and Anr. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.) and submits that, existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not a complete bar to the maintainability of a writ petition.
(3.) Union of India is represented.;