Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions taken by the Controller while exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act, 1970.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, an application for grant of patent is being objected to by the writ petitioner. He submits that, there are four other objectors to the application for grant of patent, apart from the petitioner. His client is the fifth objector. As an objector, the writ petitioner has a right to cross-examine any witness which the applicant for grant of patent relies upon in the proceeding for grant of patent. He refers to Section 79 of the Patents Act, 1970 and (Sri. Rajesh Kumar Banka v. The Union of India & Ors., 2014 4 CalLT 603) in support of his contentions. He submits that, the Controller has reserved judgment in the application for grant of patent on March 18, 2019. The Controller is yet to decide on the application made by the writ petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the applicant for grant of patent. He submits that, without the Controller taking a decision on such application, the writ petitioner will stand seriously prejudiced, if, the Controller proceeds to dispose of the application for grant of patent and allows the same by granting patent. In such eventuality, the applicant for grant of patent will have a patent granted in his favour without the objections raised by the writ petitioner being decided on merits. The Controller cannot decide the objections raised by the writ petitioner on merits as the writ petitioner is yet to be afforded the right of cross examination of the witness produced by the applicant for grant of patent.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, the Controller is yet to pass any order, which prejudices the writ petitioner herein. He submits that, the Controller is yet to take a decision on the application for grant of cross-examination. The Controller has reserved judgment in the application for grant of patent. In such circumstances, it is presumptuous on the part of the writ petitioner to allege that, the Controller has failed to exercise his discretion granted under Section 79 of the Act of 1970. According to him, the right to cross-examine is a discretionary right, which the Controller needs to decide in the facts of the given case. As there is no final order of the Controller on any aspect, the Court need not proceed on the basis of an assumption. The writ petition should be dismissed as premature.;