JUDGMENT : All these ten petitions raise a common question as to whether the use of the word “Indian/National” in the name of their schools/colleges entail a contravention of Section 3 of the Emblems & Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter “the Act of 1950”) read with Entry No. 7 in the Schedule appended thereto. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12988/2013 titled New Indian Public School Society v. State of Rajasthan is taken as the lead case. The determination by this Court therein will apply to all connected matters. 3. The petitioner-Society goes by the name of “New Indian Public School Society, Jhunjhunu. It runs various educational institutions including both schools, colleges/units with the following names i.e. “New Indian Primary School”, “New Indian Public School”, “New Indian Polytechnic College, Dundlod”, “New Indian Women's College”, “New Indian Industrial Training Centre” and “New Indian R.K.C.L. (RSCIT) Centre”. Vide order dated 03.07.2013, the Dy. Director (Secondary), Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner informed the various District Education Officers that the schools/colleges which included the word “Indian/National” or other similar word in their respective names be required to change their names excluding the said words on payment of requisite fee. It was further stated that those schools/colleges which did not change their name and exclude the word “Indian/National” or similar words therefrom, would be found in contravention of the Act of 1950 and their students would not be allowed to write the examinations conducted by the Board. The petitioner-Society states that the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2013 is arbitrary, based on a misapprehension of Section 3 read with Entry No. 7 of the Schedule to the Act of 1950 and prays that it be quashed and set aside and further that the respondents be directed not to act prejudicially under the misapprehension of law against the schools/colleges run by the petitioner-Society or their students. 4. It has been submitted that the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society aforesaid have all requisite permissions, have the names in issue approved by the competent authority under the Act of 1950, where required and are fully compliant with the extant law. These schools and colleges including the word “Indian” as a part of their whole name have been running for over a decade and half consequent to which they have come to acquire a separate and distinct identity and have earned widespread recognition. These schools and colleges including the word “Indian” as a part of their whole name have been running for over a decade and half consequent to which they have come to acquire a separate and distinct identity and have earned widespread recognition. It has been submitted that the Board of Secondary Education and its officers are not the competent authority under the Act of 1950 to require the petitioner-Society to change or alter the name of its schools and colleges and that too on a misdirected ground. Reference has been made to Section 2(b) of the Act of 1950 to submit that the competent authority to address alleged violation/contravention of the Act of 1950 means any competent authority under any law for the time being in force to register any company, firm or other body of persons or any trade-mark or design or to grant a patent. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 is also bad because it carries no allegation that use of the word “Indian” in the name of the schools and colleges of the petitioner-Society was calculated to suggest or at all suggestive, in the context of the whole of the name of the schools and colleges of the society, of any patronage to the petitioner-society or its schools/colleges by the Government of India. Counsel submitted that the use of the word “Indian” in the name of the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society does not even remotely to a reasonable person indicate any connection of the schools and colleges with any local authority or corporation or body constituted by the Government of India. The names of the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society as detailed hereinabove nowhere depict any kind of connection or patronage from the Government of India. It has been submitted that the petitioner-Society is registered with the word “Indian” as a part of its name under the Rajasthan Society's Registration Act, 1958 and further the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur vide its letter dated 24.10.2000 has allotted 2890.25 sq. mtr. of land in the name of the petitioner-Society for construction of the school under the Disposal of Property Regulation Act, 1970. Further the Government itself has given several recognitions, No Objection Certificate, Grants in the name of the petitioner-Society. mtr. of land in the name of the petitioner-Society for construction of the school under the Disposal of Property Regulation Act, 1970. Further the Government itself has given several recognitions, No Objection Certificate, Grants in the name of the petitioner-Society. Consequently aside of the complete misdirection and misapprehension of law under the impugned order dated 03.07.2013, in the event of being required to change its name and that of its colleges/schools, the petitioner-Society which also holds property in its name will be put through a huge amount of complication and unwarranted proceedings. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner-Society on the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of South India Textiles v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 55] as also upon a judgment of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of Bharat Chamber v. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ramanathapuram [W.P. (MD) No. 5763 of 2007 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2007, decided on 09.10.2012] in support of the contentions. 5. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the order dated 03.07.2013 is consequent to the letter dated 07.03.2006 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affiars, New Delhi requiring the Chief Secretaries of the all State to take effective steps to prevent the misuse of the word “Indian” or “National” or any other such word which gave the impression of any official patronage. It has been submitted that the view of the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi was that the use of the prefixes such as “Indian”, in “Indian Institute”, “National”, in “National Institute” by private sector institutes imparting higher and technical education was a practice to mislead the unsuspecting and gullible consumers namely the students and their parents. And thus the use of the word “Indian” in the name of the schools and colleges run by the petitioner-Society as also by the petitioner-Society itself misleads the unsuspecting and gullible students and their parents. Hence consequently the action of the petitioner-Society in running the various institutes and colleges in different names including the word “Indian” is violative of the provisions of the Act of 1950. 6. Heard. Considered. Section 3 of the Act of 1950 reads as under:- 3. Hence consequently the action of the petitioner-Society in running the various institutes and colleges in different names including the word “Indian” is violative of the provisions of the Act of 1950. 6. Heard. Considered. Section 3 of the Act of 1950 reads as under:- 3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling for profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government. Entry No. 7 of the Schedule referred in the aforesaid Section 3 is relevant for the determination of the dispute raised in the writ petition and reads as under: 7. Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest? (i) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by the Government under any law for the time being in force. 7. A conjoint reading of Section 3 of the Act of 1950 and Entry No. 7 to the Schedule appended thereto indicates that what is prohibited is not the use of a name but its improper use which is suggestive or calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government of India or the State Government. For a contravention of the Act of 1950 therefor what is the essential is that any word utilized by an entity or organization incorporating it in its name, is suggestive of or intended to suggest or reflect the patronage of the Government of India rendering it improper. Central to a contravention of the Act of 1950 therefore is the improper use of a word - relating the user to the Government of India or the Government of State. Central to a contravention of the Act of 1950 therefore is the improper use of a word - relating the user to the Government of India or the Government of State. In the circumstances of the case, a bare look at the name of the petitioner-Society and all the schools and colleges run by it would indicate that the word “Indian” is merely a part of the whole name of the colleges/schools incorporating prefixes and suffixes as have been detailed hereinabove. The word “Indian” used in the name of the schools/colleges is not stand alone and is preceded and followed by other words with the consequence that the name taken as a whole is not even remotely suggestive or calculated to suggest that it has the backing or support or patronage of the Government of India. In fact this is not even the allegation. What is however asserted without any foundation is that the mere use of the word “Indian” in any name of a school or college is sufficient to mislead the “unsuspecting and gullible” students and the parents. That to my mind is a very patronizing view of the respondents verging on an insult to national intelligence and awareness. The basis of this conclusion appears to be ipse dixit of the respondents without being based on any objective material. It has not been submitted that even a single complaint has been received from any member of the allegedly “unsuspecting and gullible consumers” i.e. the students in the various institutions of the petitioner-Society and/or their parents. 8. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sough India Textile (Supra) has held that the word “India” in the firm name i.e. “South India Textiles” did not signify sanction, approval or patronage of the Government of India and that it could therefore not be said to be improper use of the word “India” in the firm name within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of 1950. Similarly the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of Bharat Chamber (Supra) has held that the use of any name is prohibited only in cases, where the intention is to convey to the world at large the patronage of Government of India or Government of any State or Local Authority. Similarly the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of Bharat Chamber (Supra) has held that the use of any name is prohibited only in cases, where the intention is to convey to the world at large the patronage of Government of India or Government of any State or Local Authority. In the facts of the aforesaid case, it was held that the petitioner-firm using the term “Bharat Chambers” by itself could not be held to be using the word “Bharat” for the purpose of indicating or reflecting patronage of the Government of India. What can be culled out from the judgments referred to hereinabove is that the word “Indian/National/Bharat” used in conjunction with other words in the name of an entity, organization, incorporated or otherwise cannot be construed by itself to be an improper use of a name within the Act of 1950 as the use of the aforesaid words in conjunction of other words does not reflect any attempt of the name-holder to suggest the patronage or support of the Government of Indian or the Government of State. I am of the considered view that Section 3 of the Act of 1950 does not absolutely prohibit the use of any word even if it be “Indian/National/Bharat” in conjunction with other words to express the name and style of a business/trade/vocation. It is only when it can be established in a given case that the name is being improperly used, is calculated to suggest by itself Government patronage, support or approval, it would stand prohibited under Section 3 of the Act of 1950 read with Entry No. 7 of the Schedule appended thereto. In the facts of the case as detailed hereinabove, to my mind, neither the name of the petitioner-Society, nor its schools and colleges where the word “Indian” is merely a part of the whole name, can even remotely be construed as an attempt to reflect the patronage or support or approval of the Government of India in running of the schools and colleges. As stated hereinabove, there can be no presumption as sought to be drawn under the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 with regard to improper use of a name. 9. As stated hereinabove, there can be no presumption as sought to be drawn under the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 with regard to improper use of a name. 9. Consequently, in the facts of the case, there is nothing on record to establish that the use of the word “Indian” as part of the whole name of the petitioner-Society or as a word in the whole name of the petitioner-Society and the schools and colleges run by it is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1950 read with Entry No. 7 in the Schedule appended thereto. The impugned order dated 03.07.2013 issued by the Dy. Director (Secondary), Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner is without application of mind, wholly arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 is quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 20.12.2013 passed in SBCWP No. 5199/2014 and the consequential orders are also quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petitions stand allowed. 12. Stay applications need no address in view of the petitions having been allowed. 13. A copy of this order be placed on the file of each of the connected petitions.