GI tag for Rasagola: Orissa HC serves notices on state, WB

Also Read

BJP slams Congress for remarks on PM’s Odisha visit

7 hours ago

Parija’s book chronicles Cuttack’s Durga puja

9 hours ago

Cuttack: The ongoing war between Odisha and West Bengal over the GI tag for the sweet delicacy – Rasagola took a new twist Friday with the Orissa High Court serving notices to both the states in response to a public litigation (PIL) seeking scrapping the GI tag to ‘Banglar Rasogolla’.
Hearing the PIL here Friday, the high court served notices on Odisha Chief Secretary as well as the West Bengal State Council of Science & Technology to clarify their respective stands on the issue. The court also served separate notices to the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) and Chennai Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
Susanta Sahu, secretary of Punya Utkal Foundation and Santosh Kumar Sahoo, editor of Odia Parba, filed the PIL in Orissa High Court February 5 by seeking a GI tag for ‘Odishara Rasagola’ and demanding that the GI tag received by West Bengal for ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ be scrapped.
According to sources in the state government, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Chennai Intellectual Property Office (IPO), and West Bengal State Council of Science & Technology have also been made parties in the PIL.
It is worth mentioning here that the Geographical Indication (GI) Registry office had issued a show-cause notice to the West Bengal State Food Processing & Horticulture Development Corporation March 16 asking it to explain why the GI tag granted to ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ should not be withdrawn. The March 16 notice was issued after the Regional Development Trust chairman Ramesh Chandra Sahoo filed an application the Chennai-based IPO office for demanding that the GI tag granted to ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ either be rectified or removed.
In the plea before the high court, Susanta Sahu and Santosh Kumar Sahoo, who represent a city -based Trust, have alleged that West Bengal had received the GI status for ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ from GI Registry office on the basis of false evidence and data furnished by the neighbouring state.