All India Defence Services Advocates Association vs UOI and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petitioner All India Defence Services Advocates Association claims to be an association of practicing

advocates who have at some point of time or the other served the defence forces. The petitioner in or about the year 1999 applied to the

respondent No. 2 Registrar of Societies (ROS), Delhi for being incorporated as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The

respondent No. 2 ROS however vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2000 to the respondent No. 1 Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs,

Government of India sought a clarification as to whether the name of the petitioner attracted the provisions of para 7 of the Schedule of the

Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The respondent No. 1 Ministry of Food & Consumer Affairs vide its letter dated

14th May, 2001 informed the petitioner that the proposed name ""All India Defence Services Advocates Association"" misleads the general public

indicating ""serving Defence personnel"" and directed the petitioner to take up the matter with the respondent No. 2 ROS for making suitable

changes in the name. The petitioner claims to have proposed the name of ""All India Defence Served Advocates Association"" to the respondent

No. 2 ROS and upon receiving no response filed this petition impugning the refusal of registration under the name aforesaid and seeking mandamus

for registration as a Society in the name of ""All India Defence Services Advocates Association"". Notice of the petition was issued; Bar Council of

Delhi was also impleaded as a party and notice issued thereto also. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and to

which rejoinders have been filed by the petitioner. None has appeared for the Bar Council of Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard

and the counter affidavits of the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been perused.

The respondent No. 1 in its counter affidavit has pleaded that it is entrusted with the responsibility to examine whether any name or emblem

attracts the provisions of the Act aforesaid; that the name of the petitioner was found to have the potential of misleading and confusing the general

public into believing that the organization has the patronage of Government of India and thus to protect the public at large and the Government of

India from any such untoward usage the registration in the said name was refused. It is further pleaded that any name containing the words ""All

India"" cannot be registered.

The petitioner in its rejoinder has controverted the stand of the respondent No. 1.

The respondent No. 2 ROS has merely pleaded that in case of doubt regarding any name it is required to obtain the clearance of the respondent

No. 1 before registration.

The Act aforesaid was enacted to prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for professional and commercial purposes. Section 3

thereof prohibits use, inter alia of any name specified in the Schedule of the Act or any imitation thereof without the previous permission of the

Central Government. Para 7 of the Schedule of the said Act is as under:

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.

The reasoning of the respondent No. 1 is not found to be perverse so as to be interferable in exercise of powers of judicial review. On the

contrary the petitioner has been unable to show any need for insistence on registration as a society with the said name only. The petitioner has also

been unable to show any prejudice or injury which it may suffer if adopts any other name. The use of the words ""All India"" in conjunction with the

words ""Defence Services"" has the potential of mischief within the meaning of Para 7 of the Schedule to the Act aforesaid. No merit is thus found in

the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.