― 74. On the plea of there being an ambiguity in the form, I find no merit in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The form is clear inasmuch as under the heading ―Has the candidate variety been commercialised or otherwise exploited‖, immediately after asking the applicant of the ―date of first sale of the variety‖, it seeks from the applicant the ―country(ies) where protection is made‖. There was, therefore, no occasion for the appellant to misconstrue the said provision in the form as seeking the date of the first sale made only in India. This information is also important as Rule 22(2A), relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, provides that the registration to ‗extant variety‘ shall not be granted if on the date of the application, fifteen years have passed from the date of the first sale. The date of the first exploitation/sale was, therefore, important and material information for the application. It is not relevant if such date, otherwise, would not materially affect the eventual grant of the registration. For the purposes of Section 34 (a) of the Act, what is important is that the Certificate of Registration has been obtained on an incorrect information furnished by the applicant. The onus of providing correct information in the application is on the applicant and the applicant cannot shift this onus on the Authority or, having given incorrect information, plead that no difference would have resulted in the consideration of the application had correct information been provided by the applicant. As noted herein above, the Act confers statutory rights on the applicant which were otherwise not available to the applicant but for the Act. The applicant must therefore, be put to strict and vigilant compliance with the requirements of the Act, the Rules, and the Regulations, failing which it opens itself up to revocation of the registration granted.‖
