9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for a writ of mandamus to direct consideration for membership to a stock exchange. 2. Validity of eligibility criteria for admission to the stock exchange. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Analysis: Issue 1: Application for a writ of mandamus The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his application for membership to the stock exchange. The petitioner claimed that he had applied as an authorized assistant and fulfilled the criteria outlined in a resolution passed by the stock exchange. However, the petitioner failed to submit a filled application form with the prescribed fee and was not called for an interview. The court noted that the petitioner's requisition for an application form was pending, but without submitting a complete application, he lacked standing to challenge the stock exchange's recruitment process. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to relief as he had not followed the proper procedure for membership application. Issue 2: Validity of eligibility criteria The petitioner contended that the respondents had arbitrarily restricted the eligibility criteria for membership to a specific clause in the articles of association, contrary to a resolution passed by the stock exchange's counsel. The petitioner argued that the direction of the first respondent, restricting eligibility to two years of experience as authorized assistants, was ultra vires and nullified the earlier resolution. However, the court found that the petitioner had not submitted a complete application as required by the stock exchange, rendering his challenge to the eligibility criteria premature. The court emphasized that the petitioner must follow the prescribed procedure for membership application before questioning the stock exchange's decisions on eligibility criteria. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 The respondent contended that the stock exchange, being a company registered under the Companies Act, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, citing a previous decision. The court agreed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not suitable for the reliefs sought, especially since the petitioner had not completed the application process. Despite arguments and decisions cited by the petitioner, the court held that without a submitted application, the petitioner could not receive the relief requested through the writ petition. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merits. In conclusion, the court found that the petitioner had failed to establish a valid case for relief through the writ petition due to non-compliance with the prescribed application process for membership to the stock exchange. The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures before challenging eligibility criteria or seeking remedies through writ jurisdiction.
|
