Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 602 (DEL)

Pritam Dass v. Copyright Board

2005-05-19

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2005
JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Rule. With consent of parties, the matter was heard finally. 2. The controversy in this case is that the petitioner claimed to have been filed an affidavit on 25th January, 2005 along with an application for condonation of delay in proceedings being case No. 7/21 (NZ) before the Copyright Board. The Board had framed the issues and the petitioner herein was required by its order to file evidence on or before 25th February, 2004. The petitioner, however, did not file the evidence within the time indicated; there was delay. 3. It is stated that the petitioner approached the Board, filed the affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay, on 24th January, 2005. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the seal said to have been affixed by the Board's Office, on a duplicate copy of the covering letter issued by the counsel in that regard. A copy of the same has been produced with the petition. Proceedings were held on 9th February, 2005. On that day, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein. The order-sheet which has been annexed along with the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2 indicate that the matter was adjourned to 11th and 12th April, 2005 with the direction that no further adjournment would be granted. 4. It is averred that in these circumstances, when the matter was being taken up on 11th April, 2005, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that the application for condonation of delay along with affidavit evidence, be considered. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that at that point of time, it was realised that the application along with the affidavit were not on record. 5. It is averred that during the course of hearing, a request was made that the affidavit and application be traced and considered by the Board. No formal order was passed. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board declined the request. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the Board passed an oral order and proceeded with the merits of the matter. The hearing was thereafter concluded and orders were reserved. It is submitted that the Board gave liberty to the parties to file written submissions within two weeks. 6. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the Board passed an oral order and proceeded with the merits of the matter. The hearing was thereafter concluded and orders were reserved. It is submitted that the Board gave liberty to the parties to file written submissions within two weeks. 6. The petitioner purports to be aggrieved by the Board's declining to consider its request for tracing of the application and consideration of that application along with the affidavit. 7. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that once the hearing was concluded, and the matter reserved for orders, there was no question of the petitioner being aggrieved. The Board has not yet passed orders on merits and this Court ought not to intervene in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that both parties have not filed their written submissions till date. 8. I have heard counsel for parties. I am of the opinion that even though oral hearing has concluded, having regard to the fact that the parties herein have not file written submission, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should raise the issue concerned, namely, the request for tracing out the application with affidavit and its consideration as a part of its written submission. It is needless to add that the Board deal with all the contentions of the parties raised during the course of hearing as well as in the written submissions. The parties shall file the written submissions within a period of one week from today. 9. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as compelling the Board to take a view that the petitioner is entitled to hearing; however such a view or finding may be arrived at by the Board, if it deems that the circumstances so warrant. 10. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.