Judgment : SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J. (1). This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:-On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondents objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the controller to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. WP no. 477(w) of 2009 is disposed of. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. (2). We may notice the basic facts as pleaded by the parties. The Secretary, Atomic Energy, Government of India (respondent no. 1 herein) applied for a patent for its invention for method of treating gas emissions by and under Application No. 31/Bom/1999. This application was made on 12.01.1999 to the Controller of Patents and Designs and Trademarks at Bombay. (3). The respondent no. 1 is directly involved in basic research in nuclear sciences and allied areas including frontier areas in physics. Heavy Water Board is one of the Organisations under the control of respondent no. 1. The application for grant of patent was notified on September 25, 2004. No opposition was filed by the appellant or any third party, including respondent no. 5. (4). The patent was granted in favour of the respondent no. 1 being Patent No. 194122 on April 26, 2005. On 20th August, 2006, Dr. V. V. Rao, respondent no. 5, filed post grant oppositions under Section 25 (2) of the Patents Act, 1970. On November 20, 2006, Government of India filed an application for amendment of the specifications of the patent. The appellant filed a notice of opposition to the proposed amendments on February 2, 2007. On 20th August, 2006, Dr. V. V. Rao, respondent no. 5, filed post grant oppositions under Section 25 (2) of the Patents Act, 1970. On November 20, 2006, Government of India filed an application for amendment of the specifications of the patent. The appellant filed a notice of opposition to the proposed amendments on February 2, 2007. Initially, the Assistant Controller had intimated the date of hearing as June 7, 2007. By a letter dated June 7, 2007, the Assistant Controller intimated adjournment of the hearing in respect of the opposition so that the proposed amendments in the claims may be notified and the proceedings under Section 57 of the Act be first disposed of. This letter was, however withdrawn and date was fixed on August 8, 2007 to hear the oppositions. Respondent no. 1 requested for notification of amendments prior to hearing of oppositions. However, the date of hearing was confirmed by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the hearing was adjourned sine die in view of the submissions made by respondent no. 1. The Respondent no. 1 was insisting that if the opposition proceedings were first heard, the amendment proceedings at a later stage, would become pointless. To avoid such hearing of opposition prior to the amendments claim, respondent no. 1 was constrained to file the WP no. 23451(w) of 2007 before this Court. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant and Dr. V.V. Rao. In the meantime on 10.1.2008 the Assistant Controller informed about fixing of hearing on January 28, 2008, to dispose of the amendments proposed by respondent no. 1. But the hearing was not held as the statutory process of documentation had not been completed. (5). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 29th April, 2008 which was as follows:-A point has been taken by the learned Advocate for the respondents that there is no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this High Court. (6). However, it has been submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 5 that advertisement has already been published in the matter and the advertisement of the amendment application has been published on 14th September, 2007. (7). (6). However, it has been submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 5 that advertisement has already been published in the matter and the advertisement of the amendment application has been published on 14th September, 2007. (7). In view of that since I am not deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court in the matter and since the advertisement has already been published, the authorities are directed to take steps to dispose of the application in accordance with provisions of law. The application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.