R.S. Kejriwal , J. - (1.) The Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd., is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'). This Company is a recognised Stock Exchange under Section 2(b) of the Securities, Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956 (for short 'the SC(R) Act'). The respondent No. 2, i.e. Securities and Exchange Board of India, vide its order dated 20.4.1993, marked Annexure 1, directed all the Stock Exchange of India, including the Respondent No. 3 to amend the rules or Articles of Association in respect of various matters including those relating to the constitution of. the governing bodies of the Stock Exchanges. A copy of the statutory directions dated 19.4.1993, was enclosed with the said letter for necessary action. These mandatory directions were given to the respondent No. 3, under section 8(1) of the SC(R) Act. In pursuance of the said direcions, the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. called an extra-ordinary general meeting of its members on 18.10.1993, and passed resolutions as directed by the respondent No. 2. When the respondent No. 3 issued a Notification for election of Directors in accordance with the amended Articles of Association, the petitioner, who is a share-holder/member of the respondent No. 3, filed the present writ petition and prayed that the amendments made in Articles of the Association of respondent No. 3 i.e. the Jaipur Stock Exchange Limited on 18.10.1993, in pursuance of the directions given by the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure 1 be declared inoperative and ineffective in law till they are published.in the. gazette of India and official gazette of Rajasthan as required under Section 8(3) of the SC(R) Act. The petitioner further prayed that the proviso to Article 65(b) of the Articles of the Association of respondent No. 3 as amended be declared illegal and void ab initio. The petitioner also made other prayers in the writ petition. On receipt of a show-cause notice, the respondent No. 2 filed detailed reply, raising some preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not file any reply to the writ petition inspite of service of notice.
(2.) The first objection of Shri S.C. Bhandari, counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that since the petitioner has challenged the sub-Section.2 of Section 8 of the SC(R) Act, the writ petition should be heard by Division Bench and the Single Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the same. I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Bhandari. There is no prayer in the writ petition that any provision of S.C. (R) Act should be declared null and void. The only prayer is that the amendments made by respondent No. 3 in its Articles of Association in pursuance of the directions of respondent No. 2, be declared inoperative since they have not been published in the official gazette.
(3.) The next objection of Shri Bhandari is that the directions were given by respondents No. 2 to all the Stock Exchange in India and as such all the Stock Exchanges in India are necessary parties to the writ petition. The petitioner did not include other Stock Exhange as respondents in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. I do not find any force in this submission of Shri Bhandari, the petitioner has only prayed that since the amendments made in the Articles of Association of respondent No. 3 were not published in the official gazette and as such they are inoperative. The petitioner did not pray that the amendments made in the Articles of Association of other Stock Exchange be declared in-operative.;