Judgment : 1. The Union of India has preferred this appeal against the order dated 03.12.2007 in W.P.No.33170/2004 passed by the learned single Judge who has held that the period of Patent is to be reckoned from 23.02.2001 and not from 19.06.1992 as ordered by the Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner filed a patent application for grant of Patent under Section 7 of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 19.06.1992. It was numbered as 374/MAS/92 by the 3rd respondent for examination. The petitioner was seeking a Patent for process of preparing slow burning coloured cigarettes wherein the micropores in the cigarette filter are blocked with coloured pigment and dyes, the colours being in the range of wave length of 3696 A.U. to 7070 A.U. The 3rd respondent after scrutiny raised certain objections by sending a letter dated 03.11.1995, the period within which the petitioner should have complied with the objections was 26.10.1996. The petitioner sent reply to the said objections by speed post on 22.10.1996 which was delivered to the 3rd respondent on 30.10.1996. Since there was delay on the part of the postal department in delivering that article, the 3rd respondent refused to accept the specifications and in that regard, wrote a letter dated 18.03.1997 stating that the application was not put in order for acceptance within the period stipulated under Section 21(1) of the Act and therefore, deemed to have been abandoned. Aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18307/1997. The learned single Judge was of the view that the respondent ought to have taken into consideration the delay was due to postal strike, for which, the petitioner should not be penalized. The petitioner had taken all steps possible to despatch his explanation and clarifications sought by the respondent well within the time so that it could reach the respondents on or before 26.10.1996. The petitioner had taken all steps possible to despatch his explanation and clarifications sought by the respondent well within the time so that it could reach the respondents on or before 26.10.1996. Therefore, the communication dated 18.03.1997 was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Respondents-Authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner on merits without reference to the period of limitation as provided under subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act and the extended period under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. Even after the remand of the matter, the application was not considered though six months’ time was granted by the High Court to consider the same. After several visits to Chennai, the petitioner was called upon to re-submit his application on 23.02.2001 which was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 09.04.2001. Thereafter, by a communication dated 09.04.2001, the petitioner was informed that the application has been accepted and it is found to be in order. Further, they informed the petitioner that the notice of acceptance will be issued to the petitioner by the Patent Office, Kolkatta after acceptance of the complete specification being notified in the official Gazette. Thus, for all practical purposes, the date of application for patent is to be treated as 23.02.2001. On 27.09.2002, the petitioner received notice of acceptance of complete specification under Section 23 of the Act from the second respondent. After such acceptance, Sl.No.187971 was granted to the petitioner’s application. The second respondent published the claim of the petitioner in the Gazette of India on August 03rd 2002 calling for objections of the interested persons. Within three months on the expiry of the prescribed period, the petitioner remitted the ceiling fee of Rs.1,500/- on 20.12.2002. The second respondent did not receive any objections from any person for the claim of the petitioner. The Patent was received on 07.03.2003. The same was published in the official Gazette on 05.04.2003. The Patent was forwarded to the petitioner vide No.187971/ 19.06.1992. In the patent granted to the petitioner, it was notified that the term of the Patent is for 14 years from 19.06.1992. The second respondent sent a communication dated 28.04.2003 to the petitioner advising him to remit a sum of Rs.15,400/- on or before 22.07.2003 to maintain the Patent in force. In the patent granted to the petitioner, it was notified that the term of the Patent is for 14 years from 19.06.1992. The second respondent sent a communication dated 28.04.2003 to the petitioner advising him to remit a sum of Rs.15,400/- on or before 22.07.2003 to maintain the Patent in force. That amount is supposed to be the renewal fees in respect of the 3rd to 12th year of term of the patent, which had fallen due on 19.06.1994 to 19.06.2003. The petitioner paid the said renewal fee and remitted the same on 16.06.2003. 4. The petitioner contends that the Patent should be valid for a period of 14 years from the date of sealing and not from that date when the earliest effort was made by the petitioner to get his application scrutinized. At any rate, the commencement period of Patent granted to the petitioner should be 07.03.2003. The action of the authority is illegal and arbitrary. He is not liable to pay the renewal amount. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents in trampling upon his Patent by cutting short the life of the same, he preferred the writ petition before this Court challenging the same. The matter was contested by the respondents. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties was of the view that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered as per the Unamended Act. After referring to Section 17(2) of the Act, it was held that the date has to be reckoned from the date on which the application is filed with full specifications. It is only on 23.02.2001, the date when the petitioner submitted his application with full specification and therefore, the period of Patent has to be reckoned only from that date and not earlier to 23.02.2001. Accordingly, he issued a direction to the respondents to reckon the period of 14 years from 23.02.2001 and not from 19.06.1992. It is against the said order, the Union of India and the Patent office are before this Court. 6. Sri N. Devadass, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of Section 53 of The Patents Act, 1970, the period of fourteen years has to be calculated from the date of the application for patent. It is against the said order, the Union of India and the Patent office are before this Court. 6. Sri N. Devadass, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of Section 53 of The Patents Act, 1970, the period of fourteen years has to be calculated from the date of the application for patent. Under Section 45 of the Act, the date of the patent would be the date on which complete specification was filed. The application for patent was filed on 19.06.1992. The authorities have rightly reckoned the period of fourteen years from 19.06.1992. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the said order and erred in directing that the 14 years period is to be reckoned from 23.02.2001 the date when the second application filed for grant of patent. Therefore, he submits that a case for interference is made out. 7. Per contra, Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under: “The term of patent under Section 53 of the Act, is to be calculated from which date?” 9. The order granting the patent is passed on 07.03.2003. The Patent Amendment Act of 2002, was introduced making far-reaching changes in the Act. Section 45 has undergone substantial change. The said Amendment Act came into force from 20.05.2003. Therefore, this case has to be decided as per the law which was in force prior to the amendment. This aspect is not in dispute. 10. Chapter-III of the Act deals with applications for patents. Section-6 enumerates the persons who can make an application for a patent for an invention. Section 7 deals with the form of application. The format is prescribed. Section 9 deals with provisional and complete specifications, whereas Section 10 deals with contents of specifications. Section 11 deals with priority dates of claims of a complete specification. Chapter-IV deals with publication and examination of applications after complying with the legal requirements. Section 12 deals with examination of the application. Sections 13 to 21 deals with the procedure to be undertaken by the authorities while examining the applications. Chapter V deals with the opposition proceedings to grant of patents, whereas Chapter-VI deals with anticipation by previous publication. Chapter-IV deals with publication and examination of applications after complying with the legal requirements. Section 12 deals with examination of the application. Sections 13 to 21 deals with the procedure to be undertaken by the authorities while examining the applications. Chapter V deals with the opposition proceedings to grant of patents, whereas Chapter-VI deals with anticipation by previous publication. Chapter-VII deals with provisions for secrecy of certain inventions. Chapter-VIII deals with grant of patents and rights conferred thereby. 11. Section 43 provides for grant of patent which reads as under: “43. Grant and sealing of patent.(1) Where a complete specification in pursuance of an application for a patent has been accepted and either- (a) the application has not been opposed under section 25 and the time for the filing of the opposition has expired; or (b) the application has been opposed and the opposition has been finally decided in favour of the applicant; or (c) the application has not been refused by the Controller by virtue of any power vested in him by this Act, the patent shall, on request made by the applicant in the prescribed form, be granted to the applicant or, in the case of a joint application, to the applicants jointly, and the Controller shall cause the patent to be sealed with the seal of the patent office and the date on which the patent is sealed shall be entered in the register. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1) and of the provisions of this Act with respect to patents of addition, a request under this section for the sealing of a patent shall be made not later than the expiration of a period of six months from the date of advertisement of the acceptance of the complete specification: Provided that- (a) where at the expiration of the said six months any proceeding in relation to the application for the patent is pending before the Controller or the High Court, the request may be made within the prescribed period after the final determination of that proceeding; (b) where the applicant or one of the applicants has died before the expiration of the time within which under the provisions of this sub- section the request could otherwise be made, the said request may be made at any time within twelve months after the date of the death or at such later time as the Controller may allow. (3) The period within which under sub- section (2) a request for the sealing of a patent may be made, may, from time to time, be extended by the Controller to such longer period as may be specified in an application made to him in that behalf, if the application is made and the prescribed fee paid within that longer period: Provided that the first mentioned period shall not be extended under this sub-section by more than three months in the aggregate. 12. Section 45 deals with the date of patent which reads as under: “45. Date of patent.-(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, every patent shall be dated as of that date on which the complete specification was filed: Provided that a patent which is granted in pursuance of an application to which any directions issued under section 78C of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 applied immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall be dated as of the date of the filing of the complete specification or the date of such commencement, whichever is later. (2) The date of every patent shall be entered in the register. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no suit or other proceeding shall be commenced or prosecuted in respect of an infringement committed before the date of advertisement of the acceptance of the complete specification.” 13. (2) The date of every patent shall be entered in the register. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no suit or other proceeding shall be commenced or prosecuted in respect of an infringement committed before the date of advertisement of the acceptance of the complete specification.” 13. Section 53 deals with term of patent, which reads as under: 53. Term of patent. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the term of every patent granted under this Act shall- (a) in respect of an invention claiming the method or process of manufacture of a substance, where the substance is intended for use, or is capable of being used, as food or as a medicine or drug, be five years from the date of sealing of the patent, or seven years from the date of the patent, whichever period is shorter; and (b) in respect of any other invention, be fourteen years from the date of the patent. (2) A patent shall cease to have effect notwithstanding anything therein or in this Act on the expiration of the period prescribed for the payment of any renewal fee, if that fee is not paid within the prescribed period or within that period as extended under this section. (3) The period prescribed for the payment of any renewal fee shall be extended to such period, not being more than six months longer than the prescribed period as may be specified in a request made to the Controller if the request is made and the renewal fee and the prescribed additional fee paid before the expiration of the period so specified. 14. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that any person who claims to be the true and first investor of the invention or assignee of such investor of the invention or the legal assignee, who had a right to make such an application may make an application in the prescribed form for grant of patent. The said application may be provisional or complete. It should contain complete specifications indicating the subject matter to which the invention relates. Thereafter, the said application shall be published inviting objections. It is only after considering the objections, if any, the Controller if he finds that the application for patent has been found to be in order, grant the patent. If it is not in order, reject the application. Thereafter, the said application shall be published inviting objections. It is only after considering the objections, if any, the Controller if he finds that the application for patent has been found to be in order, grant the patent. If it is not in order, reject the application. After grant of the patent it shall be sealed and the date on which the patent is granted shall be entered in the register. Section 45 which deals with the date of patent, categorically states that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, every patent shall be dated as of the date on which the complete specification was filed. Therefore, the date of patent shall be the date on which complete specification was filed, but not the date of incomplete specification or a provisional specification. In fact that provision has undergone a substantial amendment by way of Amendment Act of 2002, where the amended provision provides that every patent shall be dated as of the date on which the application for patent was filed. Thereafter, the Controller shall publish the fact that the patent has been granted and thereupon the application, specification and other documents related thereto shall be open for public inspection. The patent so granted shall be dated as of the date on which the complete specification was filed. The term of the patent shall be the number of years as mentioned in Section 53 which is calculated from the date of the patent. This is broadly the scheme of the Act. 15. Therefore, in the instant case, though the first application for patent was filed on 19.06.1992, the authorities treated the said application as having been abandoned by the petitioner as within the period prescribed, he did not furnish the requisite particulars. It is at their request, a second application was filed on 23.02.2001 with complete specification. Therefore, the date of patent is the day on which the second application with complete specification was filed i.e., 23.02.2001. Fourteen years period is to be reckoned from 23.02.2001. The amended provision has no application to the facts of this case. That is the mistake the authorities have committed. As the law stood on the day the application was filed and on the day the order granting patent was passed, the date of patent is to be reckoned from the day the complete specification was filed. The amended provision has no application to the facts of this case. That is the mistake the authorities have committed. As the law stood on the day the application was filed and on the day the order granting patent was passed, the date of patent is to be reckoned from the day the complete specification was filed. In view of Section 53 of the Act, fourteen years is to be calculated from the date of patent i.e., from the date of complete specification, as rightly held by the learned single Judge. 16. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.