9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Stock Exchange, Bombay, is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the denial of membership to the first petitioner violates Article 300A and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether the decision of the governing board of the Stock Exchange to deny membership to the first petitioner was bona fide and in accordance with the rules and regulations. Summary: Issue 1: Authority under Article 226 The Stock Exchange, Bombay, contended that it is not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence, a writ does not lie against it. However, the Supreme Court has construed Article 226 very widely to include not merely statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but also any other person or body performing public duties. The court referred to the case of *Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas-jiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani*, where it was held that the term "authority" must receive a liberal meaning. The Stock Exchange is a recognized body under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and performs duties of public interest. Therefore, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Issue 2: Violation of Article 300A and Article 19(1)(g) The petitioners argued that by denying membership to the first petitioner, the Stock Exchange violated her right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, depriving her of property without the authority of law, and also violated their fundamental right to carry on their trade or occupation. The court examined the rules, bye-laws, and regulations of the Stock Exchange, which are statutory bye-laws approved by the Government of India. Membership of the Stock Exchange is a personal permission and not a transferable right, and there is no property in membership. The governing board has the discretion to approve or deny membership based on a ballot, and this discretion is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The right to regulate admission to a professional body, including the right to reject unsuitable persons, is a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on a profession or trade. Issue 3: Bona fide Decision of the Governing Board The court considered whether the decision of the governing board to deny membership to the first petitioner was bona fide. The governing board had before it the past conduct of a firm with large undischarged liabilities, which had close relatives of the deceased member as partners. The deceased member had held himself out as a partner of this firm, and there were claims referred to arbitration involving his heirs and legal representatives. The governing board, by a substantial majority, decided against granting membership to the first petitioner, and this decision was not based on mala fide grounds. The denial of membership was a valid exercise of the governing board's right to ensure fair dealings and high standards of commercial honor. Conclusion: The court found no grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition with costs.
|
