New Delhi: The All-India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA), which has filed several petitions against the alleged illegal working of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has received notice of derecognition from the Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry, which exercises its jurisdiction over the CGPDTM’s office.
Issued in August 2025 and reaffirmed in February this year, the show-cause notice condemns the association for espousing and supporting the cause of individual government servants relating to service matters. The notice states that AIPOWA has been pursuing service interests of individual officers, more particularly those who are its office-bearers, through litigation.
ThePrint has a copy of the two notices: one issued in August last year and the second last month that required AIPOWA office-bearers to be present for a hearing.
According to the first notice, AIPOWA’s conduct of taking up individual causes is in violation of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993, capable of attracting withdrawal of the association’s recognition.
AIPOWA has questioned the validity of the two notices before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that has issued notice to the Ministry of Commerce and the CGPDTM’s office for their response. The tribunal has also asked them to submit their stand on the association’s plea to stay the operation of the two notices.
The AIPOWA’s petitions before various judicial fora have raised several issues, ranging from abrupt transfers of patent officers, outsourcing work to contractual manpower and appointment of a select few officers to sensitive posts. Before filing cases, the association had made a representation before the ministry, demanding action against the alleged arbitrary decisions taken by the CGPDTM, Unnat Pandit.
In its latest petition before the CAT against the ministry’s derecognition notices, the association claimed that the ministry itself had issued show-cause notices to Pandit on various occasions regarding alleged irregularities in the CGPDTM’s office.
The association stated that it was registered under the Societies Registration Act and recognised by the central government. Having offices in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai, the association represents patent officers such as examiner of patent and designs, joint controller, and senior controller of patent and designs.
As an entity, the association argued, it is entitled protection under Article 14, which is equal treatment under the law, and Article 19(1)(c), that gives freedom to citizens to form associations as a mode to express themselves.
The association further stated that prior to the August 2025 show-cause notice, it had not received any communication from the ministry and despite a detailed reply, without due application of mind, a hearing notice was issued to it.
Also Read: Threatened with transfers for challenging patent chief’s appointment, patent officers’ body tells SC
Litigations taken up by AIPOWA
One of the key litigations taken up by AIPOWA is about Pandit’s appointment, which, the association has alleged, is not in terms of the rules governing the hiring process for the post.
Last year, the association lost its case before the Delhi High Court, which refused to entertain its writ petition of quo warranto, stating that a public interest litigation is not maintainable in cases of service matter. But in February, the top court, allowing AIPOWA’s challenge to the order, remitted the matter back to the HC after observing that the association’s writ of quo warranto was maintainable. It directed the HC to undertake a fresh exercise and hear the matter afresh.
A quo warranto is a judicial remedy that is used to challenge an individual’s right to hold a public office, franchise, and in some cases, a corporate office. A petition of this nature is aimed to prevent usurpation of public office by an individual.
Another significant case pursued by the AIPOWA questioned the alleged arbitrary re-allotment of patent cases. A petition demanding a CBI inquiry against Pandit over alleged access to sensitive, unpublished data relating to pending trademarks and patent applications to a private MNC is also pending before the high court.
The association had also moved CAT against en-mass show-cause notices issued to patent officers by the CGPDTM in discharge of their quasi-judicial obligations. On CAT’s direction, the ministry had quashed almost all the notices as an appellate body. However, with regard to five officers, including three office-bearers of the association, the CGPDTM has not withdrawn the notices.
The association also questioned transfer orders issued by the CGPDTM, following which the ministry stepped in and curbed Pandit’s power to transfer officers by issuing a new policy. While the case is still pending in the CAT, the policy has been overturned to restore Pandit’s power to decide on transfers.
According to the association, officers are being harassed, humiliated and intimidated and the victimisation commenced soon after it questioned Pandit’s appointment in the SC.
The association has claimed that the show-cause notice was issued to it when a grievance was raised for delayed payment of salary to newly recruited patent officers.
It further said the CGPDTM’s office also issued a circular to the association’s members, seeking their consent regarding continuation of their membership. This was without jurisdiction and amounted to interference in the association’s working, the petition claimed.
In the past, Pandit has lodged two complaints against the association, one before the Registrar of Societies, Chennai, and the other before Charity Commissioner-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)