S-2 20.05.2011 Present: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Kruttil<a Vijay and Ms. T. Saul<shmya, Advs. for the petitioner Ms.Poonam Anand for Ms. Manisha Dhir, Adv. for the respondent Mr. Ayush Sharma and Mr. Sudarshan Singh Shel<hawat, Adv. for R-2 +CM NO. 7226/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 1025/2011 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner praying for leave to withdraw the writ petition. 2. It is pointed out that respondent no. 3 had filed revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board seeking revocation of the patents granted to the petitioner. By separate orders which were passed on 16'^ 18"" November and 2""^ December, 2011, these revocation petitions were granted and the 12 patents granted to the petitioner were revoked. The petitioner had assailed the revocation of Indian Patent No. 202885 by way of the present writ petition. 3. The respondents had appeared on advance notice and had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this court to deal with the subject matter of the writ petition. Extensiveargumentswere placed before this court extending over several dates by senior counselsfor all the parties. As at this stage, the matter stands reserved for adjudication on this issue. 4. The applicationfor withdraw!has been filed for the reasonthat Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified - 2 - apart from the three writ petitions filed in this court wherein the objection to maintainability has been heard, it is urged that the petitioner had filed nine individual writ petitions challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the similar revocation of patents, orders before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The applicant states that orders dated 20'^ April, 2011 have been passed in these nine writ petitions. In view thereof, the petitioner has sought leave to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file the same before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 5. The private respondent is present on advance notice of this application for withdrawl and submit that the petitioner requires to be burdened with costs in the given circumstances. 6. In view of the objection which was raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the present petition, it would appear to be in the interests of justice to grant the prayer made in this application. However, it cannot be denied that valuable judicial time has been expended on hearing prolonged arguments on the respondents' preliminary objection which were raised at the first instance with regard to maintainabilityof the three writ petitions before this court. The prayer of the respondents for award of costs appears to be justified. 7. Accordingly,it is directedthat subjectto paymentof costs of - 3 - Rs.50,000/- to each of the respondents within two weel<s, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law in a court of competent jurisdiction. This application is allowed in the above terms. W.P.(C) No.1025/2011 8. In view of orders passed on CM No. 7226/2011, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to each of the respondents within two weeks from today, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. MAY 20, 2011 kr GITA Ml