Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act 2001 pertains to the granting of relief during the pendency of an application for registration of plant varieties. A recent case has brought to light the interpretation and application of this provision, particularly concerning whether relief can be granted during the pendency of an application. This article undertakes an analytical examination of this issue, focusing on the legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and implications of the case in question.

Legal Background:
Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, explicitly addresses the issue of granting relief during the period between the filing of an application for registration and the decision made by the relevant authority. This provision empowers the Registrar to issue directions and grant relief during this interim period, thereby ensuring effective protection of rights pending the final determination of the application.

Case Overview:
The case under scrutiny involves an appeal filed under Section 56 of the Act against an order passed by the Registrar, wherein relief sought under Section 24(5) was denied on the grounds of prematurity. The Appellant had applied for relief, including damages, injunction, and rendition of accounts, during the pendency of their application for plant variety registration. The Registrar deemed the application premature, contending that relief could only be sought after the grant of registration, not during the application process.

Judicial Analysis:
Upon appeal, the Delhi High Court examined the language and intent of Section 24(5) of the Act. The Court emphasized the plain reading of the provision, which explicitly allows for the issuance of directions and granting of relief during the period between application filing and the decision by the authority. The Court observed that the Registrar's interpretation was contrary to the statutory mandate, as it deprived the Registrar of the power conferred by the statute to provide interim relief.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory language and purpose. By affirming the Registrar's authority to grant relief during the pendency of an application, the Court ensures the effective implementation of the Act's objectives, including the protection of plant breeders' and farmers' rights.

Implications:
The ruling of the Delhi High Court clarifies the scope and applicability of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. It establishes that relief can indeed be granted during the pendency of an application for plant variety registration, in accordance with the statutory provisions. This decision provides certainty to stakeholders by reaffirming the authority of the Registrar to intervene and provide interim relief when necessary, thereby promoting confidence in the legal framework governing plant varieties and farmers' rights.

Conclusion:
The case discussed herein sheds light on the interpretation and application of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the importance of upholding statutory provisions and ensuring the effective implementation of legislative objectives. By affirming the Registrar's authority to grant relief during the pendency of an application, the Court reinforces the protection afforded to plant breeders and farmers under the Act.

Case Title: UPL Limited Vs Registrar and another
Order Date: 22.02.2024
Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PV) 3/2022
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:1913
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest and the same are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified attorney for legal guidance on specific matters.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539