A division bench comprising Justices Devinder Gupta and S K Aggarwal while issuing notices to the ministry of industry, acting controller general of patents, designs and trademark and controller of patents and designs, last week, asked them to file replies by September 14, the next date of hearing.

The petition filed by Advocate V Sagar challenged the rule 20B under chapter ii-a of the Patents Rule, which provides that under the Patents Cooperative Treaty, the Patent Head Office would function as `receiving, designated and elected' office to process all international applications entering the national phase.

Sagar said, the provision was `ultra vires' of Article 14 and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights ofequality before law and freedom of profession, occupation, trade and business.

``The rule, a piece of subordinate legislation, violates the fundamental rights by imposing unreasonable restriction against practice of the profession,'' the petition said.

Sagar, who deals with cases relating to patents, in his plea said, rule 20B is also contrary to the basic spirit of Patents Act, 1970, itself which clearly indicates a legislative policy to establish various patent offices across the country to facilitate registration of patents.

Rule 20D of the Act makes it specific that international applications entering the national phase in India were to be dealt with in the same way as national applications, the petition said.

``In these circumstances, rule 20B incorporated in 1972 is inter alia ultra vires of the rule making authority under the constitution and the act itself,'' he said.

The petition said the act does not make any distiction between the Patent Head Office and the branch offices at Delhi, Mumbaiand Chennai in matters of exercise of their powers, authority, competence or discretion of the controllers, deputy controllers, assistant controllers in further examining the applications.

Similarly, there existed no custom, usage or system for allocation of work based on the nature or technicality of the invention and the nationality of the inventor to be processed only by the head office, it said.

There had been practice of accepting and rejecting the applications under clause (a) of sub rule (1) of rule 4 of the Patents Act at the principal place of business, the petitioner claimed.