9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd., non-petitioner No. 1, are arbitrary and illegal. Further grievances of the petitioners relate to the constitution of a screening committee and that enrolment of 200 members before the recognition of non-petitioner No. 1 is also illegal and should be quashed. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. A press advertisement was issued in the year 1983-84 by which the non-petitioner No. 1 invited applications initially for enrolment of 200 members but in response to the same, 1,300 applications were received. In view of the large number of applications, it is stated by non-petitioner No. 1 that the Central Government nominated a screening committee which scrutinised a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven out by him that the Union of India, non-petitioner No. 2, has authorised non-petitioner No. 1 to look after their interests also and appear in this court on their behalf. It is contended by Shri Bhandari that D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 259 of 1988 was earlier filed by Manju Lata Jain and the petitioner, Kamlesh Kumar, which was disposed of by this court, vide its order dated March 16, 1988. It is contended that similar contentions were raised in that petition also and, therefore, the present petitions do not lie. It is also contended that non-petitioner No. 1 does not fall within the ambit of "State" as defined in article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, also the petitioners are not entitled to file any writ petition against n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to apply for membership as per the conditions laid down in the new form for application which has been approved by the Central Government, they shall also be considered. Thus, there can be no grievance to such applicants who had filed an application in the year 1987-88 and that the drafts given by them regarding membership fee, etc., were not encashed and have been returned to them. We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and the documents on record. At, the outset, it may be stated that this court, in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 259 of 1988 decided on March 16, 1988, held that "Since the aforesaid selection of 182 persons for membership was made by non-petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the selection mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is provided that if the Central Government is of the opinion that the recognition granted to the stock exchange, in the interest of trade/public interest, be withdrawn, it can do so after serving notice and giving opportunity of hearing in this respect. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make any enquiry in the prescribed manner relating to the affairs of the governing body of the stock exchanges or any member thereof. Thus, in short, it can be said that under the Act and the Rules framed there under, the Central Government has power to keep complete control over the work of the stock exchanges which have been recognized in the country. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the condition of the recomme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers of the screening committee are not independent and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their decision. It seems that the matter regarding proper formation of the screening committee also came up while the earlier Writ Petition No. 259 of 1988 was decided and it was held that the screening committee was constituted by the Central Government. It is also contended by the petitioners that the discretion with the council of management to reject any application approved by the screening committee gives controlling power to it even on the recommendation made by the screening committee. It is given out by Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1, that as per the direction of the Stock Exchange Division of the Central Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment nominates three nominees on its own behalf. Two such nominees have been already appointed, vide letter dated February 1, 1989, of the Ministry of Finance which has been marked as annexure-R-1/12. Letter marked annexure-R-1/13 dated March 28, 1989, issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, addressed to the president of non-petitioner No. 1 shows that the Central Government has also nominated Shri H. M. Mathur, Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan, as another nominee of the Central Government on the council of the management of non-petitioner No. 1. A reference may also be made to annexure-1/11 dated March 27, 1986, issued by the same department as confirming the recom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
