fulfilled and conditions that are to be made, as well as the various steps that see the grant or refusal of an application, no endeavor was made to specify who can hold the office of Registrar. The respondents’ endeavor to say that proceedings before the Registrar are judicial proceedings and that this is borne out by Section 87, is in this court’s opinion, only partially correct. That provision merely deems proceedings before the Board and the Registrar to be akin to judicial proceedings “ in relating to registration of variety or essentially derived variety, registration of agent, registration of licence or registration of compulsory licensing under this Act “within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. These are not judicial proceedings, but are only so for the specific purpose, to prevent perjury and render those who suborn themselves criminally responsible. Section 11 too does not help the respondents, or the intervener because it confers limited powers of a civil court, upon the Registrar, i.e , (a) “for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and (b) to “make such orders as to cost as it considers reasonable and any such order shall be executable as a decree of a civil court.” The powers of a civil court to make or modify orders, or act in furtherance of its inherent powers, or direct discovery, etc. are not conferred; nor can they be conferred or read into the Act. The complete lack of any judicial or quasi judicial expertise on the part of the Registrar is highlighted if one sees that the Tribunal, which is to decide appeals from decisions of the Registrar is to comprise of judicially trained officers or judicial offers, with at least 10 years’ experience or lawyers with 12 years’ practice, and, what is
