2000 (1) TMI 794 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chairman of SEBI.
2. Violation of rule 3(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members) Rules, 1992.
3. Application of rule 20 regarding the power to relax rules.
4. Validity of deemed relaxation.
5. Eligibility and public interest litigation (PIL) aspects.
6. Delay and laches in filing the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Appointment of Respondent No. 2:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chairman of SEBI, alleging that the appointment violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and related rules. The appointment was made by the Central Government for a term of five years, effective from 21-2-1995.

2. Violation of Rule 3(2):
The petitioner argued that the appointment violated rule 3(2) of the SEBI (Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members) Rules, 1992, which stipulates that the Chairman and whole-time Members shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years, though eligible for reappointment. The petitioner contended that the five-year term exceeded the permissible limit.

3. Application of Rule 20 (Power to Relax Rules):
The respondents defended the appointment by invoking rule 20, which allows the Central Government to relax the provisions of any rules concerning any class or category of persons. The Government's notes from the Finance Ministry and the Cabinet Secretary indicated awareness of the three-year limitation and justified the need for a five-year term for respondent No. 2.

4. Validity of Deemed Relaxation:
The court considered whether the Government exercised its power to relax the rules. The petitioner argued that there was no explicit mention of rule 3(2) or rule 20 in the notes, thus no formal relaxation was granted. The respondents countered that the intent to relax was evident from the context and the notes, and the omission to mention specific rules did not invalidate the relaxation. The court agreed with the respondents, holding that the Government's intent and the context sufficed for deemed relaxation.

5. Eligibility and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Aspects:
The court noted that the petition did not qualify as a PIL as it did not involve public interest or fundamental rights but was a matter of individual service conditions. The court emphasized that a writ of quo warranto should not be issued unless there is a gross violation of rules or law, which was not evident in this case. The court also found that the petitioner had no locus standi, as the challenge was based on personal vendetta against SEBI officials.

6. Delay and Laches in Filing the Petition:
The court found the petition highly belated, filed more than three years after the appointment, despite the petitioner being aware of the appointment through public notifications. The petitioner's excuse of ignorance of the rules was deemed insufficient to justify the delay.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the contentions regarding the violation of rules or the arbitrary exercise of power. The appointment of respondent No. 2 was upheld, and the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.