The Registrar of GI, India Mr. P.H. Kurian vide its order dated 3rd June 2009 has delegated his powers as Registrar under GI Act 1999 to Shri GL Verma, Assistant Registrar except the power to head the Consultative Committee and handle issues covered by Chapter VI of the Act relating to rectification and cancellation of GI. The same is done under Section 3 (2) of the GI Act.
There is no power conferred upon the Registrar under GI Act to delegate the functions assigned to him. Section 3 (2) only empowers the Central Government to appoint additional employees under the superintendence and control of the Registrar to assist him.
The Role, powers and functions of the Registrar cannot be further delegated. This is an absolutely illegal order on the part of the Registrar.
I feel that such an illegal order shall further worsen the existing GI scenario in India. None of the GI in India has been judicially scrutinized till date. None of them is registered in conformity with the law.
It is going to be disastrous to the GI laws in India
2 comments:
Under Section 3(1), Controller General is the registrar, as in the case of Trade Mark Act. Similiarly in Patents Act, Controller General is the "Controller". However there are Officers appointed in GI Office, TM Office, Patent Office etc. with appropriate designations.
There is no doubt that the Controller General has all the powers to decide on to whom his powers are to be delegated. Since Controller General is the administrative head only (need not be the technical expert) of all the Intellectual property Offices, he is not expected to retain any powers with him. Instead it shall be delegated to Technical Heads.
There is absolutely no doubt the Controller General has powers to split the responsibilities among more than one Technically qualified Officers appointed under Section 3(2) of GI Act. I'm not sure whether the order from Controller General is is illegal, but it unconventional and not according to the precedence.
R.S. Praveen Raj
Scientist - IP Management (CSIR)
Former Patent Examiner, Indian Patent Office
thanks, Mr. RS Praveen Raj. Delegation and sub delegation of quasi judicial powers is contingent upon the specific provision. in case of absence of legal power to sub delegate, the sub delegation is not legally permissible
Post a Comment