FACTS OF THE CASE
On February 18, 2011, the appellant applied to the Plant Variety Authority for the registration of a chipped potato variety, FL 2027, under the ‘new’ category. Concerning the variety’s classification, the Registrar explained that it belongs to the ‘extant’ group. Although the appellant corrected the application, it was mistakenly identified as a “new variety” on the form. On February 1, 2016, the Registrar awarded registration, considering it to be an “extant variety.” Despite the application being published without receiving any opposition within the timeframe specified by section 21(2) of the Act, the respondent filed an application under section 34 of the Act with the Authority to have the registration granted in the appellant’s favor revoked. In accordance with Section 34(a), (b), (c), and (h) of the Act, the Authority granted the application and issued the contested order rescinding FL 2027’s registration.
The appellant’s request to renew their registration was likewise denied due to the registration being revoked, as stated in the Authority letter of February 11, 2022. The appellant, disappointed with the Authority’s ruling, challenged the contested order and letter in the current appeal, filed under section 56 of the Act. The appellant initially contended that the Authority had overreached its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act by reevaluating the facts related to the appellant’s application for the registration of the FL 2027 potato variety. Since the registration is predicated on the Registrar’s best judgment, the Authority could not replace the same.
WHAT IS PLANT VARIETIES AND FARMERS’ RIGHTS ACT, 2001?
The Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (henceforth referred to as “the Act”) establishes a framework that effectively safeguards plant varieties, breeders’ and farmers’ rights, and promotes the creation of new kinds. Under Section 28 of the Act, a breeder who registers a variety receives the sole right to produce, sell, market, distribute, import, or export the variety. The Act’s “quid pro qua” impact means that the monopoly given to an applicant for the duration of registration must coincide with the disclosure of information to the public.
It implies that the owner of a plant variety registration would receive financial compensation for any expenditures incurred in research and development over the variety’s registration period. To enable anybody to generate the protected variety once registration expires and it enters the public domain, the applicant must, in exchange, fully disclose any advancements claimed in the variety developed.
If the applicant does not meet these standards, Section 34 of the Act may cancel the variety even if it is registered. In PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavitha Kuruganti, the Delhi High Court rendered a decision on July 5, 2023, that addresses the important question of whether the Authority was right to revoke the appellant’s registration by citing the grounds listed in Section 34(a), (b), (c), and (h) of the Act.
LEGALITIES OF THE CASE
Section 34 Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the protection granted to a breeder in respect of a variety may, on the application in the prescribed manner of any person interested, be revoked by the Authority on any of the following grounds, namely: –
(a) that the grant of the certificate of registration has been based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant;
(b) that the certificate of registration has been granted to a person who is not eligible for protection under this Act;
(c) that the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such information, documents or material as required for registration under this Act
(h) that the grant of the certificate of registration is not in the public interest:
Provided that no such protection shall be revoked unless the breeder is given a reasonable opportunity to file objection and of being heard in the matter.
APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENT UNDER SECTION 34 (a) (b) (c) and (h)
- According to Section 34(a) of the Act, the Authority can cancel a registration based on false information. The appellant argued that the Authority misunderstood, as the registration error (checking “new variety” instead of “extant”) didn’t impact the registration, given the Registrar categorized FL 2027 correctly as an “extant variety.” Additionally, the order wrongly cited application deficiencies related to an unintentional error in the first sale date, which the appellant claimed had no bearing on the registration.
- Under Section 34(b), the certificate can be revoked if granted to someone not entitled to protection. The appellant argued the order incorrectly deemed their assignment deed unlawful due to unstamping and lack of witnessing, stating it was completed in the USA where such formalities aren’t required. Section 34 prohibits revocation when the Registrar accepts it without objection.
- Section 34(c) deals with failure to provide necessary information. The appellant contested that the order misunderstood the legality of their assignment deed, completed in the USA, where stamping and registration aren’t mandatory.
- Section 34(h) allows cancellation if issuance isn’t in the public interest. The appellant argued that using this section was an error, as the suit against farmers, ineligible under Section 39(1)(iv), shouldn’t be retrospectively deemed against public interest in 2021 when the appellant had a valid certificate and no revocation application during the litigation filing.
RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENT UNDER SECTION 34 (a) (b) (c) and (h)
- The respondent contended that the impugned order is free of errors. The appellant had purposefully checked the box for ‘new variety’ instead of ‘extant variety’. Furthermore, the respondent contended that, according to documents, the first sale of FL 2027 in Chile occurred in 2002, and thus the variety became public domain after 2017, i.e., fifteen years after the date of first sale. As a result, the appellant would be ineligible to renew his registration. As a result, the Authority has correctly invoked Section 34 (a).
- The respondent contended that there was no legitimate assignment of such right in the appellant’s favor and that the appellant had not produced any documentation proving its entitlement to file the application. Moreover, the breeder of the candidate variety did not sign PV-2, the required form proving the authority to submit an application. Therefore, the Authority properly invoked section 34(b) and (c) to withdraw the registration that had been granted in the applicant’s favor.
- The respondent contended that the appellant had misused the registration by suing several Gujarati potato producers and demanding disproportionately large and unreasonable compensation. The intention behind such crimes was to terrorize, harass, and deeply unsettle the farmers. As a result, the registration was properly canceled in accordance with Section 34(h) of the Act.
HELD
The appellant’s amended registration application for FL 2027 was found to be wrong by the court, and the Registrar was not required to make any changes. The Authority could not have canceled the appellant’s registration in accordance with Section 34(a) of the Act since the appellant could not have been found guilty of giving false information. The court further decided that the petitioner must supply accurate information, and that the date of the variety’s initial sale is essential information for the application. Without the breeder’s signature or that of FLNA, the breeder’s purported assignee, the appellant submitted an application in blank. The necessary registration documentation were not provided by the breeder.
According to the court, the application was determined to be deficient, and the Authority had good reason to revoke the registration that had been issued in accordance with Section 34(b) and (c) of the Act. Furthermore, the court decided that bringing lawsuits against farmers, no matter how baseless, would not be able to prove that the registration was granted against the public interest. As a result, the Authority erred when it cancelled the registration that was authorized by Section 34 (h). The appeal was cost-free dismissed by the court. According to the court’s ruling, applications for variety registrations must be submitted strictly in accordance with the Act, Rules, and Regulations. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide accurate information.
