A. N. SURTI, J. ( 1 ) A short and a neat point adversely affecting a citizens legal right for being heard only in opposition proceedings under the Patents Act 1970 arises in these two matters for our consideration. ( 2 ) BOTH the aforesaid matters are disposed of by this common judgment as desired by the learned advocates of the parties. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner-Anup Engineering Limited-before us a few relevant facts may be stated. ( 4 ) THE petitioner Company manufacturing machines of several types and is having its registered office at Anil Starchs premises Anil Road Post Box. No. 1164 Ahmedabad. It may be also stated at this stage that respondent No. 3-Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited-is having its office at 18. 20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi. ( 5 ) THE case which was put up before us discloses that respondent No. 3 made an application to the Controller of Patents having its office at Municipal Market Building III Floor Karol Bagh New Delhi on 3/10/1977 for getting a patent in regard to a machinery known as metal bellows. It may be stated that respondent No. 3 had made such an application to respondent No. 1-the statutory Officer under sec. 66 of the Patents Act 1970 ( 6 ) AFTER the filing of such an application by respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 1 an advertisement appeared in the Gazette of India of 20/10/1979 (Asvina 28 1901 Part III-Sec. 2 and the advertisement which appeared in the said Gazette is in the following terms:manufacture OF METALLIC BELLOWS. APPLICANT: BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. 1820 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG NEW DELHI-110001. INVESTORS: MAHENDRA KUMAR MEHTA RAM KUMAR DASSMAL BUDHANI AND GEORGE MATHEW. APPLICATION No. 1141/cal/76 filed 5/07/1976 Complete Specification left 3/10/1977appropriate office for opposition Proceedings (Rule 4 Patents Rules 1972 Patent Office Delhi Branch. 5 Claims. APPLICANT: BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. 1820 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG NEW DELHI-110001. INVESTORS: MAHENDRA KUMAR MEHTA RAM KUMAR DASSMAL BUDHANI AND GEORGE MATHEW. APPLICATION No. 1141/cal/76 filed 5/07/1976 Complete Specification left 3/10/1977appropriate office for opposition Proceedings (Rule 4 Patents Rules 1972 Patent Office Delhi Branch. 5 Claims. An apparatus for producing metal bellows out of metallic tubes comprising a die preferably made in two halves said die having grooves formed at its inside said die being disposed within a cylinder means for introducing liquid such as oil under pressure into a metal tube placed within the die to form partial convolutions in the wall of the metal tube on the expansion of the metal tube under the ore pressure said tube being then subjected to roll forming machine comprising three rollers one toll roller and two bottom rollers each having stages for stepwise formation of grooves to give the final shape to the bellow. PROV. Specn. 6 pages. COMP. Specn. 9 Pages. Drg. 3 Sheets. ( 7 ) THE said advertisement clearly provides inter alia that even the appropriate office for opposition proceedings (See the bracketed portion of the said advertisement: Rule 4 of the Patents Rule 1979 is as referred in the advertisement. It may be significantly noticed that the appropriate office address for the opposition proceedings is only mentioned as:- Petent Office Delhi Branch. In pursuance to the said advertisement it is an admitted fact as can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs Bombay that the petitioner-Company wanted to appear and lodge its grievances by way of opposition proceedings before grant of any patent to respondent No. 3. After having read the advertisement the petitioner who is having its registered office in Ahmedabad posted an application on 17/02/1980 The petitioner Company posted the application in Ahmedabad by registered post. On these facts there was no dispute before us as can be significantly noticed even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on behalf of respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) IT appears that the said application was not received by respondent No. 1/02/1980 but the envelope containing the application of the petitioner was possibly returned by the post office to the petitioner-Company. ( 8 ) IT appears that the said application was not received by respondent No. 1/02/1980 but the envelope containing the application of the petitioner was possibly returned by the post office to the petitioner-Company. ( 9 ) IT may be also stated that on 3/03/1980 the application of the petitioner Company was reposted with the aforesaid envelope bearing the date 17/02/1980 at the Delhi address of respondent No. 1. ( 10 ) ON 5/03/1980 the Statutory Officer viz. respondent No. 1 received the envelope posted from Ahmedabad on 3/03/1980 and which also contained the application of the petitioner dated 15/02/1980 ( 11 ) ON 7/03/1980 respondent No. 1 the Controller of Patents intimated to the petitioner Company that the application of the petitioner Company cannot be entertained ( 12 ) IT was under these circumstances that the Petitioner-Company bad a genuine grievance against respondent No. 1 who was holding a statutory office under the Patents Act 1970 In substance his grievance was that before the grant of any patent to any industry or any person or any Company or any merchant or any industry a citizen must be heard particularly when the aforesaid statutory right of the petitioner to lodge its objections and opposition before the statutory office was very much subsisting within a period of four months as provided in sec. 25 of the Patents Act 19 and to ventilate its grievance the petitioner Company took out two proceedings viz. (1) The petitioner Company filed the aforesaid first appeal in this Court; and (2) the petitioner also filed Special Civil Application 2767 of 1980. Both these matters were admitted by this Court and in Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 1980 Mr. A. P. Ravani the learned advocate appeared for the Controller of Patents and Designs New Delhi and for the Controller of Patents Calcutta. On behalf of respondent No. 3 viz. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Mr. S. N. Shelat appeared with Mr. D. A. Dave. ( 13 ) AT the time of the hearing of these two matters it clearly emerges even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs that the petitioner Company sent an application along with Form No. 14 duly filled in to respondent No. 1 at New Delhi. S. N. Shelat appeared with Mr. D. A. Dave. ( 13 ) AT the time of the hearing of these two matters it clearly emerges even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs that the petitioner Company sent an application along with Form No. 14 duly filled in to respondent No. 1 at New Delhi. At this stage we want to clarify that in the said application dated 15/02/1980 it is stated that respondents No. 3s application for a patent was accepted and that the petitioner Company desired to file an opposition application to the grant of a patent on the basis of an application filed by respondent No. 3. It is also stated in the said application that the petitioner Company had already applied for the copy of the specification of the said application and that they were studying the specifications and that therefore they required time to file the opposition. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner filed in Form No. 14 a request for extension of time and that the petitioner Company also paid the requisite fee of Rs. 25. 00 on Form No. 14 by way of postal order. The petitioner Company also sent the power-of-attorney authorising one Mr. J. T. Trivedi to make an application along with the said application dated 15/02/1980 ( 14 ) AS stated above and under the circumstances mentioned respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner Company that the petitioner-Companys aforesaid application even for extension of time could not be considered. ( 15 ) AS stated above out of safety and caution the petitioner Company has filed the aforesaid special civil application in this Court as well as the first appeal as the petitioner-Company had the grievance against the impugned order of respondent No. 1 inasmuch as he was not inclined to entertain the aforesaid application of the petitioner-Company. ( 16 ) IN the case before us we are convinced beyond any doubt that on a plain reading of sec. 25 of the Patents Act 1970 a citizen is having a statutory legal right of lodging his objections and/or opposition within a period of four months from the date of the advertisement appearing in the gazette. At this stage we may usefully refer to sec. 25 of the Patents Act 1970 a citizen is having a statutory legal right of lodging his objections and/or opposition within a period of four months from the date of the advertisement appearing in the gazette. At this stage we may usefully refer to sec. 25 (1) of the Act which is in the following terms:"25 At any time within four months from the date of advertisement of the acceptance of a complete specification under this Act (or within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate as the Controller may allow on application made to him in the prescribed manner before the expiry of the four months aforesaid) any person interested may give notice to the Controller of opposition to the grant of the patent on any of the following grounds namely : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 17 ) IN substance Mr. Ravals submission before us was that this is a clear case where the Patents Act 1970 confers on any person interested a right of being heard so that he can give notice to the Controller the notice of opposition to the grant of a patent on any of the grounds set out in sec. 25 of the Act. Ravals submission before us was that this is a clear case where the Patents Act 1970 confers on any person interested a right of being heard so that he can give notice to the Controller the notice of opposition to the grant of a patent on any of the grounds set out in sec. 25 of the Act. He urged that by the impugned order or action of respondent No. 1 the petitioner-Company has lost an extremely valuable right and that this court should necessarily protect the same as the petitioner Company had posted an application wherein he had clearly expressed his intention to file opposition or notice of opposition within the time statutorily prescribed under sec. 25 of the Act and that being so in the instant case there is no question of condoning the delay in sending the said application as urged by the respondents. ( 18 ) MR. Raval also urged that this is a ease where the petitioner-Company is having its registered office in Ahmedabad the communication in question has taken place between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner Company in Ahmedabad respondent No. 1 intimated to the petitioner-Company that its application could not be entertained in Ahmedabad and hence this Court should protect the right of the petitioner-Company at least when his grievance is that he should be heard on all the counts or any of the counts envisaged by the Act in a proper proceedings particularly when he expressed in clear and categorical terms to respondent No. 1 that he desired to oppose the grant of any patent to respondent No. 3 in regard to the aforesaid machinery. ( 19 ) MR. Shelat the learned advocate could not satisfy us as to how the aforesaid application of the petitioner-Company was not in time. In any event the petitioner-Company sent the aforesaid application at the very address mentioned in the advertisement. It is possible as mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the correct address was not written down on the envelope which was posted by the petitioner-Company for the purpose of being delivered to the office of respondent No. 1. Suffice it to say that the petitioner-Company did act with all possible vigilance and in the address mentioned in the advertisement. Suffice it to say that the petitioner-Company did act with all possible vigilance and in the address mentioned in the advertisement. Under the circumstances we are not at all impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner-Company should have mentioned the correct address or should have stated further particulars in regard to the address of the office of respondent No. 1. We may state that we have also seen rule 4 of the Patents Rules 1972 referred to in the said advertisement but even the said rule does not assist nor advance the case of the respondents in any manner whatsoever. ( 20 ) BUT Mr. Shelat the learned advocate for respondent No. 3 urged before us that this High Court has no jurisdiction even to entertain the petition of the petitioner-Company. He urged that if the petitioner Company had any grievance it should have filed a petition not in this Court but in the High Court at Delhi. He also urged that this is a case where the first appeal is not maintainable having regard to sec. 116 of the Act which provides that no appeal shall lie from any decision order or direction made or issued under this Act by the Central Government or from any act or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to any such decision order or direction. . ( 21 ) SEC. 116 (2) of the said Act further provides as follows: (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in sub-sec. (1) an appeal shall lie to a High Court from any decision order or direction of the Controller under any of the following provisions that is to saysec. 15 sec. 16 sec. 17 sec. 18 sec. 19 sec. 20 sec. 25 sec. 27 sec. 28 sec. 51 sec 54 sec. 57 sec. 60 see. 61 sec. 63 sub-sec. (3) of sec. 69 sec. 78 sec. 84 sec. 86. sec. 88 (3) sec. 89 sec. 96 and sec. 97. ( 22 ) AS the impugned order is in essence and substance an order under sec. 25 of the Act the petitioner Company has filed first appeal and at the same time a measure of safety it has filed special civil application. 69 sec. 78 sec. 84 sec. 86. sec. 88 (3) sec. 89 sec. 96 and sec. 97. ( 22 ) AS the impugned order is in essence and substance an order under sec. 25 of the Act the petitioner Company has filed first appeal and at the same time a measure of safety it has filed special civil application. ( 23 ) WITHOUT entering into controversy whether a first appeal or a special civil application is maintainable in this Court this is a fit case even having regard to our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution that the necessary relief must be given to the petitioner-Company whose only grievance is that the petitioner-Company must be heard before the grant of any patent to respondent No. 3. ( 24 ) WE may also mention at this stage that we are not at all impressed by any of the two submissions made by Mr. Shelat. This is a case where this Court must protect the statutory legal rights when it exercises its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sec. 25 of the Patents Act 1979 confers a right to lodge objections or opposition to grant of any patent as stated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are convinced beyond any doubt that the petitioner-Company did act with all vigilance and carefulness within the period statutorily prescribed under sec. 25 of the Act. ( 25 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances we did not hear Mr. Shelat on the question of condoning delay at all and hence the circumstances of the case did not requite us to hear either Mr. Shelat or Mr. Ravani on the point of condoning delay. ( 26 ) NO other submission was advanced either by Mr. Shelat or Mr. Ravani in course of the hearing of the present two matters. ( 27 ) THE result of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside and we hereby direct respondent No. 1 to decide the application along with Form No. 14duly filed in by the petitioner Company in accordance with law. ( 28 ) IN view of our aforesaid discussion we hereby direct the petitioner Company to lodge its opposition if so desired within a period of one month from to-day. ( 28 ) IN view of our aforesaid discussion we hereby direct the petitioner Company to lodge its opposition if so desired within a period of one month from to-day. Having received the said application from the petitioner Company respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the opposition of the petitioner-Company in accordance with law on its own merits. ( 29 ) ACCORDINGLY the impugned order of respondent No. 1 is set aside. Rule is made absolute but having regard to the strenuous opposition even of respondent No. 1 on a vital right of the citizen we direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to pay to the petitioner costs of this petition. In view of this order in special civil application there will be no orders in the first appeal as well as civil application. Rule made absolute. .