Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th February, 2023
MANGAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prasanna S and Ms. Swati Arya, Advocates with Petitioner Mangal
Singh (M: 9910824768).
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Mr. Kaushaljeet Kait GP and Mr. Syed Husain, Taqvi Shubham Prasad, Advocates for UOI (M: 9811013810).
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner- Mangal Singh is a farmer who is also an inventor of a device called ‘Mangal Turbine’. As per the Petitioner, the said Turbine is capable of irrigating more than 120 hectares of land, lifting water up to a distance of 120 meters and the same is achieved without the use of electrical or diesel energy.
3. The said Turbine invented by the Petitioner has been patented by the Petitioner vide Patent No. 224804 titled ‘Improved Fuel-Less Turbine Pump’ which was filed with a priority date of 28th January, 2004 and granted by the Indian Patent Office on 22nd October, 2008. He had also received a patent for the invention titled ‘Fuel Less Turbine Cum Pump Machine’ which was filed with a priority date of 21st May, 1990 and thereafter, granted by the Indian Patent Office on 30th November, 1996. The Petitioner has received several commendations for his invention which includes the National Innovative Farmer Award, awarded to him on 9th April, 1991 in an international conference organised by IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) and ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research). The promotion and adoption of this Turbine has been attempted in the part by the ICAR and other research Centres including Alternate Hydro Energy Research Centre, IIT Roorkee and The Energy Research Institute (TERI) etc.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that projects were sanctioned for the installation of the turbines invented by the Petitioner. However, due to nonrelease of the adequate funds for the project and delays in releasing the funds by the project awarding authorities/bodies, the same got delayed. The result of this was that the projects did not take off fully.
5. The Court is constrained to observes that even with the various funding initiatives which were launched by the Government, the same did not assist the Petitioner. Today, the Petitioner is facing a a situation wherein his ancestral land measuring around 18 acres has been acquired for Re.1/- by the State of Uttar Pradesh without paying any compensation on the ground that he is a government debtor.
6. It is observed that some amount has been released to the Petitioner in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 2423/2016 titled Mangal Singh v. Council for Advancement of People Action and Rural Technology and Anr. and the appeals arising there from LPA No. 288/2016 titled ‘Mangal Singh v. Council of Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology’. The order dated 16th September, 2019 by which the Petitioner was awarded the dues of projects awarded by Council of Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) reads as: “Pursuant to our last order dated 22.07.2019, a cheque amounting to Rs.4,58,029/-, which is interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent, is handed over to the Petitioner in the Court today. We are of the view that an other cheque of the equivalent amount be paid to the Petitioner directly within a period of eight weeks from today. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
7. The Petitioner’s conduct was enquired into by Dr. B.P. Maithani, former Director of the National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad which endorsed the Petitioner’s invention. The endorsement made by Dr. B.P. Maithani in his report, reads as:
8. It is seen from the records that the life of the patent would be come into end in January, 2024, had the patent been maintained and renewal fee been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. The issues that this simple yet innovative fuel less turbine sought to solve such as drought, pollution, energy scarcity, global warming, etc. continue to be relevant even today.
9. In view thereof, let ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1- Ministry of Rural Development seek instructions form the Secretary of Ministry of Rural Development as to whether this invention of the Petitioner can be commercialised and if so, in what form Petitioner can be compensated for the same.
10. Let notice be also served to the other Respondents.
11. The State of Uttar Pradesh shall be served by the Registry through the Standing Counsel in the Supreme Court of India. Let a short reply be filed by the Ministry of Rural Development, Union of India after seeking instructions.
12. List on 25th April, 2023.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. FEBRUARY 7, 2023 MR /Am