JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. 1. At the time of completion of the hearing of both the revisional applications, this Court directed these matters to be listed under the heading "For Judgment" today. But due to inadvertence, the matter did not appear for judgment today. The learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties who are present today submit that there is no impediment in delivering the judgment by this Court. By consent of parties, these revisional applications are treated as on day's list and this Court delivers the following judgments. These two revisional applications are at the instance of the common petitioner against the common opposite parties challenging the orders dated January 14, 2013 and February 13, 2013 respectively passed by Additional District and Session Judge, 4th Court, Barasat in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2012, extending the ad interim order of injunction dated September 26, 2012 as modified by order dated January 9, 2013 in C.O. No. 4125 - 4126 of 2012 by this Court. 2. The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 140 of 2012 which was re-numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 against an order refusing to pass an ex parte order of injunction. 3. Challenging the show cause notice dated August 30, 2012 apparently issued by the Registrar of Copyrights and Director (BP & CR) upon the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, the opposite party No. 1 filed the Title Suit No. 194 of 2012 in the 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat. By the said show cause notice, the Registrar of copyrights in the very opening word indicates that it is forwarding a complaint dated August 9, 2012 received by the Ministry of Human Resource Development relating to the illegalities in administration of the opposite party No. 4 and invited the reply on the alleged point of illegalities within ten days from the date of receipt thereof. 4. Admittedly, the said notice is neither addressed nor issued to the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 but the challenge is thrown on the assertion that the said show cause notice is an outcome of the collusion between the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 4. Admittedly, the said notice is neither addressed nor issued to the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 but the challenge is thrown on the assertion that the said show cause notice is an outcome of the collusion between the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. It further averred that the petitioner has no locus standi being neither the owner of any copyright in respect of musical works or literary works and sound recording nor would be effected by any agreement between the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 and with Select Media Holding Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that the said show cause notice which has originated from the complaint of the petitioner who is acting in collusion and connivance with the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, is illegal, ultra vires, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction. 5. It is interesting to note that in Paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is recorded that the Registrar of the Copyrights is constituted under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India having various powers conferred by the Copyright Act, 1957. 6. Initially, the Trial Court refused to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction which on being assailed in a Miscellaneous Appeal, as aforesaid, the Appellate Court passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the parties to the suit from proceeding any further with the said show cause notice. However, it was observed that the earlier practice of disbursement of royalty shall continue which would be subjected to the decision that may be obtained at the time of final disposal of the said appeal. 7. The petitioner being the defendant No. 3, however, assailed the said order in revision as also the order by which the extension was made which was registered as C.O. No. 4125 - 4126 of 2012. The Revisional Court declined to interfere with the interim order so far as it restrains the defendants from proceeding with the show cause notice but modified the order by which the direction was made for payment of the royalty which shall be paid in accordance with the amendment provision of Copyright Act. 8. Between the period from passing the ad interim order and its extension, an application for addition of party was taken out for adding the Registrar of Copyrights which was eventually allowed. 9. 8. Between the period from passing the ad interim order and its extension, an application for addition of party was taken out for adding the Registrar of Copyrights which was eventually allowed. 9. This Court in an earlier occasion expressly observed that the parties have not filed their respective affidavits and the Court of appeal below while considering the application for extension of interim order would record the reasons after affording an opportunity of hearing to the all parties. 10. It would be deciphered from the order dated January 9, 2013 passed in an earlier revisional application that a point relating to the jurisdiction and competence of the Registrar of Copyrights in issuing a notice was expressly taken. It was contended, at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 herein, that the notice issued by the Registrar of Copyrights is wholly without jurisdiction in view of the express provisions contained under Rule 14C of the Copyright Rules which provides the proceedings to be initiated by the Central Government. This Court prima facie observed that the Act does not authorize the Registrar of Copyrights to issue the show-cause notice as the power rests with the Central Government. 11. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the Registrar of Copyrights is a creature of a Central Government and in fact, the show-cause was not issued independently by the said Registrar of Copyrights, but for and on behalf of the Central Government which would further be corroborated from Paragraph 4 thereof, which says that the said show cause notice is issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of the Human Resource Development. He further points out that it was clearly stipulated therein that in absence of any reply given within the time indicated therein, the Ministry will be constrained to take a decision in this regard without the written comments. He, however, submits that the suit is premature as having filed against the show cause notice and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Special Director and Another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 . He, however, submits that the suit is premature as having filed against the show cause notice and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Special Director and Another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 . By referring section 33(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957, he contends that the Central Government on being satisfied that the copyright society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interest of the authors and other owners of the right may cancel the registration of such society, after such inquiry as may be prescribed and such prescription could be find under Rule 14C of the Copyright Rules and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said notice is issued without any jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is submitted that if there is any discrepancy and inconsistency between the delegated legislation and the statute, it is the statute which has the primacy over the delegated legislation and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Itw Sighode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in (2004) 3 SCC 48 and in case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2006) 12 SCC 583 . 12. Mr. Jyanta Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1, however, submits that it is not a universal rule that a suit is not maintainable challenging the show-cause notice. According to him, the said show-cause notice is capable of being assailed if issued by an authority having no jurisdiction or competence to do so and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Chief of Army Staff and ors. vs. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety reported in (1985) 2 SCC 412 , in case of Union of India vs. Hindalco Industries reported in (2003) 5 SCC 194 and in case of Union of India and Anr. vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270 . Mr. Mitra, however, strenuously submits that power to issue the show-cause notice is conferred upon the Central Government under Rule 14C of the Copyright Act and the Registrar of Copyright, although, appointed by the Central Government have limited powers and duties under the said Act. vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270 . Mr. Mitra, however, strenuously submits that power to issue the show-cause notice is conferred upon the Central Government under Rule 14C of the Copyright Act and the Registrar of Copyright, although, appointed by the Central Government have limited powers and duties under the said Act. He, however, submits that the scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the Court exercising such jurisdiction should not usurp the powers of the Appellate Court and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of K. Balasubramania Chetty vs. N.M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty reported in AIR 1975 SC 818 . 13. Mr. Anindya Mitra, the learned Senior Advocate adopts and concurs with the submission of Mr. Jyanta Mitra and additionally submits that the point sought to be agitated by the petitioner relating to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Copyright in issuing the show-cause notice was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in an earlier revisional application and have prima facie opined that the Registrar does not have such authority to issue the show-cause notice and, therefore, the said issue cannot be reopened in this revisional application where the challenge is made to an order extending the interim order. According to him, if the Co-ordinate Bench on an earlier occasion did not interfere with the order granting the ex parte injunction as well as the extension, the other Co-ordinate Bench dealing with an order extending the interim order should not take a contrary view. 14. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2, although, echoed the same voice but, however, submits that the show cause notice being an outcome of an interference by the Minister of the Human Resource Development is illegal, as he has no authority to interfere with the alleged affairs and placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in case of Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Company & Ors. vs. State of W.B. & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) CHN 264 . 15. Mr. vs. State of W.B. & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) CHN 264 . 15. Mr. Tilok Bose, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 8, the Registrar of Copyrights, however, submits that the Court should not interfere with the show-cause notice on the ground of jurisdiction and competence of the authority which can very well be agitated before the said authority in filing the reply thereto and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India & anr. vs. Kunisetty Satanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 . 16. Having considered the respective submissions, the entire gamut of issue as it appears centers around the jurisdiction and the competence of the Registrar of Copyright in issuing the show cause notice either independently or on behalf of the Central Government. 17. The opening sentence of the show cause notice which is annexed to the revisional application would suggest that it is issued on the direction of the Ministry to forward the complaint dated August 9, 2012 lodged by the petitioner alleging the illegalities with respect to the administration of the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. In Paragraph 3 of the said show cause notice, the reply was invited and it was further expressed that in the event, the same is not filed, the ministry will take a decision ex parte. 18. Section 9 of the said Act provides for establishment of the Copyright office under the Immediate Control of the Registrar of Copyrights who shall act under the superintendent and direction of the Central Government. Section 33(4) of the said Act empowers the Central Government to cancel the registration of such society after such inquiry as may be prescribed, if it is satisfied that the copyright society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interest of the authors and the other owners of rights. Rule 14C prescribed the procedure for holding an inquiry by the Central Government on the complaint of the Registrar of Copyright or of any owner of rights. 19. According to the petitioner, the Registrar has acted on the direction of the Central Government and the said show-cause notice is, in fact, issued by the Central Government through the Registrar of the Copyrights and, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. 20. 19. According to the petitioner, the Registrar has acted on the direction of the Central Government and the said show-cause notice is, in fact, issued by the Central Government through the Registrar of the Copyrights and, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. 20. The law as it emerges from the judgments cited by both the parties that normally the Court should not entertain a proceeding challenging the show cause notice subject, however, that the same is without jurisdiction or issued in abuse of process of law. The aforesaid proposition could be traced from the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Chief of Army Staff (supra) where the show cause notice issued by the Chief of Army Staff relating to certain misconduct of the Army Personnel when the Court Marshall found him "not guilty". It was held that the said show cause notice being an outcome of abuse of the process of law is liable to be cancelled and/or struck down. 21. In case of Whirlpool (supra), it is, further, reiterated that if the authorities are acting wholly without jurisdiction, then every action is capable of being assailed in the Court of Law. However, in case of Hindalco Industries (supra), the Apex Court observed that the High Court should not have interfere with the show cause notice but having done so, the special writ petition should be entertained on merit to find out whether the said show cause notice, so issued, was wholly without jurisdiction or not. 22. The same principle is further reiterated in case of Vicco Laboratories (supra) where it is held that normally the Court should not interfere against the issuance of show cause notice but an exception is carved out if it is found that the same is issued without jurisdiction or in abuse of the process of law. However, the Apex Court cautioned that the Court should interfere in the rare cases and if it is found that a factual adjudication is required, then the interference is ruled out. After taking note of the earlier judgment as has been relied upon by Mr. Tilok Bose in case of Special Director and Another (supra). 23. However, the Apex Court cautioned that the Court should interfere in the rare cases and if it is found that a factual adjudication is required, then the interference is ruled out. After taking note of the earlier judgment as has been relied upon by Mr. Tilok Bose in case of Special Director and Another (supra). 23. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the instant revisional application is filed against an order extending the ad interim order of injunction in an appeal against an order refusing to pass ex parte ad interim order of injunction. 24. On an earlier occasion, this Court also faced with the similar arguments when an earlier order extending the ad interim order of injunction was assailed before this Court. The observation of the Court at the stage of extension of an ad-interim order remains binding at the subsequent stage of an extension, although, may not be conclusive and loses its the binding effect when a main proceeding is being taken up. 25. There is a categorical prima facie observation made by this Court in an earlier revisional application that the Act does not authorize the Registrar of Copyright to issue a show cause notice as the power rests with the Central Government. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to take a contrary view at the subsequent stage of the extension of interim order. I am not unmindful of the fact that if an earlier order of extension is made in absence of exchange of affidavits but subsequent extension is made when the affidavits are on record and certain vital factual aspects are brought to the notice of the Court which requires a contrary view to be taken. Entire gamut of an argument in the instant revisional application is based upon the question relating to the competence of the Registrar of authorities to issue the show cause notice and once having taken a prima facie view, the Co-ordinate Bench taking up the matter against a further order of extension should respect such finding, although, it loses it binding efficacy at the time of consideration of the Miscellaneous Appeal itself. 26. This Court, therefore, does not find any reasons warranting the interference of the impugned order. 27. The revisional application is, however, dismissed. 28. 26. This Court, therefore, does not find any reasons warranting the interference of the impugned order. 27. The revisional application is, however, dismissed. 28. It is needless to mention that any observations made either by the Trial Court or by this Court is mere tentative and shall not have any persuasive effect upon the Court of appeal below at the time of disposal of the Miscellaneous Appeal. 29. This Court further observed that the Court of Appeal below, who in seisin of the said Miscellaneous Appeal, shall make efforts to dispose of the Miscellaneous Appeal as expeditiously as possible. It is further informed by the parties that the said Miscellaneous Appeal is fixed today at 2-00 p.m. The Court of Appeal below shall take up the said Miscellaneous Appeal and shall try to dispose of the same within ten days from date. 30. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. Application dismissed