Patent opposition procedure: writ relief was refused, but witness subpoenas were treated as mandatory under natural justice.

Extraordinary writ relief was treated as unavailable where the Controller had become functus officio and an adequate appellate remedy remained, so a writ to compel subpoenas would have been ineffective. In patent opposition proceedings, however, the Controller was held bound to permit bona fide witness evidence: the statutory hearing obligation and natural justice required that a party be allowed to adduce the evidence it considered necessary, and subpoenas for witnesses could not be refused in discretion, though adjournment remained a matter of judicial control. The appellate route remained the proper remedy at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether extraordinary writ or mandatory relief should be granted to compel issue of subpoenas when an appeal lay to the appellate authority and the Controller had already lost seisin of the matter; (ii) whether the Controller of Patents was bound to issue subpoenas for witnesses sought by a party in opposition proceedings, or had a discretion to refuse them.

Issue (i): whether extraordinary writ or mandatory relief should be granted to compel issue of subpoenas when an appeal lay to the appellate authority and the Controller had already lost seisin of the matter.

Analysis: The remedy under certiorari, prohibition, and the statutory equivalent of mandamus is discretionary and is not granted where another specific and adequate legal remedy exists. The undertaking not to proceed was construed as continuing until the final disposal of the matter on appeal, but by the time relief was sought the Controller had already given judgment and the matter stood before the appellate tribunal. The Controller had therefore become functus officio, and any writ directed to him would be ineffective. In these circumstances, the Court held that the applicants had an adequate remedy in appeal, including the possibility of remand and further hearing.

Conclusion: Extraordinary relief was not available and the objection to the refusal of relief failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Controller of Patents was bound to issue subpoenas for witnesses sought by a party in opposition proceedings, or had a discretion to refuse them.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Controller to hear the applicant and the opponent, and that hearing was construed to include the evidence of witnesses when a party chose to adduce it. The Indian Patents and Designs Act contained no provision comparable to the English rule making affidavit evidence the norm and viva voce evidence exceptional. Proceedings before the Controller were required to conform to natural justice, and the parties were entitled to decide what evidence was necessary for their case. The Court therefore held that the Controller had no discretion to refuse subpoenas bona fide sought for witness attendance, though questions of adjournment remained within his judicial discretion.

Conclusion: The Controller was bound to issue subpoenas when properly asked for by a party.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellate remedy was adequate and the impugned orders could not effectively be corrected by writ at that stage, even though the Controller was held to be bound in principle to issue subpoenas for witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary writ or mandatory relief will not be granted where the tribunal has become functus officio and an adequate appellate remedy is available, but in quasi-judicial patent proceedings the authority must permit a party to adduce bona fide witness evidence and issue witness subpoenas as part of a hearing conducted according to natural justice.

---