Dismissed

Srinivas S Devathi v. Union of India

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2023WP/4851/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition filed by a patent holder seeking ambiguous reliefs. The court held that the prayers were non-specific and clear and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum as it was not a proper case for writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The prayers sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted; the writ petition is rejected.

Srinivas S Devathi Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4851 OF 2023 (IPR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRINIVAS S DEVATHI AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE D. SATYANARAYANA RESIDING AT NO.63, 11TH B CROSS 3RD MAIN, PRASHANTHNAGAR BANGALORE- 560 079, INDIA, MOBILE (91)-966-393-2293 E-MAIL ID- [email protected] …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS S DEVATHI PARTY IN PERSON.,)

¶8

AND:

¶9

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ETERNAL AFFAIRS Digitally signed LEGAL AND TREATIES DIVISION by DHANALAKSHMI ROOM NO 901, AKBAR BHAVAN MURTHY CHANAKYAPURI Location: High NEW DELHI-110 021. Court of PH- 91-11-24674143. Karnataka REPRESENTED BY MRS. UMA SEKHARM ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ALSO REPRESENTING EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER MR. S. JAISHANKAR.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.ADITYA SINGH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I PRAY THE HONORABLE HC TO ISSUE ORDERS TO SECTION HEADING INDEPENDENT VALUATION OF MY INVENTION SALE PRICE GIVEN BY INDIAN GOVT AND ETC.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition is filed by Mr.Srinivas S Devathi, petitioner-party in person under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying in all 38 prayers.

¶17

2. The case of the petitioner:

¶18

Petitioner, namely, Mr.Srinivas S Devathi, has invented a technology of Repeatable Vehicle Color Change Technology in the quarter of the year 2007 in USA and also got the patent in USA from United State Patent and Trademarks Office (for short ‘USPTO’) on 16.12.2014 bearing No.US8,910,998 and also filed 17 applications in various countries and also got patents about his invention. The further case of the petitioner is that there is a breach

¶19

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶20

of Patent Cooperation Treaty by the foreign entity. Therefore, he has approached this Court to sue against them and also seek damages as prayed in the prayers.

¶21

On service of advanced copy of the writ petition, Mr.Aditya Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶22

Mr.Srinivas S Devathi, petitioner-party in person has argued the matter at length. He has reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition.

¶23

Mr.Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition. He contended that out of 38 prayers sought by the petitioner, none of the prayers are specific and clear. Such reliefs cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that similar relief has been claimed by the petitioner by filing a suit before the Trial Court and the

¶25

said suit has been dismissed. Thereafter, he has filed

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶28

W.P.No.21782/2022 before this Court and this Court has disposed of the writ petition on 6.2.2023. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 6.2.2023 passed in W.P.No.21782/2022, the request of the petitioner has been considered and his request has been refused by the Central Government by email communication dated 5.4.2023. Hence, he sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶29

Heard Mr.Srinivas S Devathi, petitioner-party in

¶30

person and Mr.Aditya Singh, learned CGC for respondent.

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed in

¶32

all 38 prayers. None of the prayers are specific and clear. To the question asked by this Court to the petitioner as to what exactly is the relief he has sought for in the writ petition, the petitioner answered that he has got a patent in USA on 6.12.2014 and now the Patent Cooperation Treaty has been breached and therefore, he wants to sue against the foreign entity.

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶34

Under Section 86 of CPC, the petitioner has to

¶35

take consent of the Central Government to sue against any foreign entity. Without obtaining the consent, he has filed the suits i.e., O.S.No.40/2022 and O.S.No.41/2022. The said suits have been rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter, he has filed W.P.No.21782/2022. This Court by order dated 6.2.2023 has disposed of the said writ petition and the operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶36

“7. The submission is placed on record. Since the consideration is underway, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the grievance fo the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if not earlier.”

¶37

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21782/2022, on request made by the petitioner for issuance of consent letter to sue USPTO, the Central Government by email communication dated 5.4.2023 has rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:19123 WP No. 4851 of 2023

¶39

¶40

Under the circumstances, if the petitioner has

¶41

any grievance against the rejection of his request by the Central Government vide email communication dated 5.4.2023, he has to approach the appropriate legal forum.

¶42

The prayers sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the communication of the Central Government dated 5.4.2023 before the appropriate legal forum, if law permits.

¶44

Office is directed to return the certified copies of the Annexures to the petitioner-party in person after retaining the Xerox copies of the same.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Srinivas S Devathi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas S Devathi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs Taffy Appliances Private Limited

R Krishna Murthy Vs Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

Kotebagilu Karibasappa Vs Smt. Mallamma

Sri M. Ramakrishnappa Vs Venkatappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

C Manju S/O Channaraya Reddy Vs Munivenkataramanappa S/O Munivenkatappa

R P Sharma I P S Vs Ashok Kumar