The Madras High court today directed the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Delhi, not to take any 'precipitating action' over basmati rice produce from Madhya Pradesh and areas where it is now grown till a decision is taken on a petition before it.
After hearing the senior counsel for Madhya Pradesh, the first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, observed that the issue sought to be raised was that while some states had been included in toto, what should have been actually done was to include specified areas of concerned states where cultivation of basmati rice goes on.
The bench stated this in view of a decision to be taken with regard to specified areas which have to be included in the Geographical Indications (GI) tag.
It was hearing a petition filed by Madhya Pradesh, represented by the Additional Director of Agriculture Department, seeking to quash the February 5 2016 proceedings of The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) here.
IPAB had held, among other things, that APEDA, a statutory body, is entitled to getting GI tag for basmati rice in respect of the area and region specified in certified copies of maps annexed with its GI application.
Consequently, the Assistant Registrar, GI Registry, Chennai, shall proceed with the registration and issue the certificate of registrationwithin four weeks, IPAB had said.
This order was challenged by Madhya Pradesh.
Senior state counsel for MP submitted that the issue of including certain areas of the state as basmati-growing should be examined by the Assistant Registrar of GI (ARGI) in view of IPAB's order. There were already directions to conclude that aspect within six months, he said.
The bench, after hearing the arguments, issued notice to counsel of IPAB and other authorities.
The counsel contended that such a plea cannot not be raised in proceedings before ARGI and could be done before this court as a consequence of the impugned order.
The court noted that MP had never assailed the earlier order of ARGI and had thus lost its right to raise this issue, as otherwise they could always do so before ARGI, subject to meeting the conditions required to do so.
It then adjourned the matter to April 5 and directed the authorities concerned to file their replies by then.
