Bombay High Court Sets Aside Unreasoned Rejection Of Boiler Alloy Patent By Patent Office On DAE Direction

The Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a patent application for an industrial alloy used in high-temperature boiler systems, holding that the refusal based on the Department of Atomic Energy's direction cannot stand without reasons.

The court said the absence of reasons prevents the applicant from understanding the basis of rejection and from taking steps under the law.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Huntington Alloys Corporation challenging the orders dated November 18, 2020, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and April 6, 2021, passed by the Department of Atomic Energy rejecting its patent application.

The application was for an invention titled “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, relating to a high-temperature alloy used in boiler applications.

The Patent Office had referred the application to the Department of Atomic Energy under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.

The Department took the view that the invention related to atomic energy and, on that basis, directed that the application be refused.

For its part, the union government maintained that the law vests the final decision on this issue with the Central Government.

Looking at the law, the court did not dispute that such power exists. What it found lacking, however, was any explanation. The order simply recorded a conclusion without setting out the reasons behind it.

The petitioner, on the other hand, had consistently asserted that its invention, an alloy for boiler applications, had nothing to do with the release of atomic energy. In these circumstances, the Court said the applicant was entitled to know what led the authorities to take a contrary view.

The Court further observed that if reasons had been given, the petitioner could have amended its application under the law.

Emphasising the importance of reasoned orders, the Court said:

“… a reasoned order is a judicial decision providing explicit reasons and justification for its conclusion, which ensures transparency, accountability and contributes to upholding the rule of law. The reasons of a decision are considered to be its 'heartbeat', replacing subjectivity with objectivity and ensuring that the authority passing the order has applied its mind to the facts placed before it.”

Holding that a non-speaking order cannot be sustained, the court set aside the impugned orders.

It directed the authorities to reconsider the application and pass a fresh, reasoned order. The petitioner has been allowed to place additional material on record.