Writ jurisdiction over recognised stock exchanges extends to public duties, while membership refusal based on suitability was upheld.

A recognised stock exchange performing public duties may be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because it operates under statutory supervision and serves public interest in regulating securities dealings. Its refusal to admit a nominee member was upheld, as membership under the exchange rules was a permission subject to election and compliance with suitability and liability requirements, not an inalienable property right. On the materials before it, the board's decision was treated as a bona fide exercise of regulatory discretion to preserve probity and fair dealing, and it was not shown to violate Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the stock exchange was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for membership was invalid for breach of constitutional rights or for want of bona fides.

Issue (i): Whether the stock exchange was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A body need not be a statutory authority in the strict sense to fall within Article 226 if it performs public duties. The stock exchange was a recognised stock exchange under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, functioning under statutory supervision and serving objects of public interest, including regulation of securities dealings and fair dealing.

Conclusion: The stock exchange was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for membership was invalid for breach of constitutional rights or for want of bona fides.

Analysis: Membership under the exchange rules was a personal permission and not property or an inalienable transferable right. The rules permitted nomination by heirs of a deceased member, but final admission still depended on election by ballot under Rule 28 and on compliance with the governing rules concerning liabilities and suitability. The governing board had before it material concerning the deceased member's business associations, outstanding liabilities, and connected disputes. In that background, the refusal to elect the petitioner was treated as an exercise of discretion aimed at preserving the exchange's standards of probity and fair dealing. Such regulation of membership was held to be a reasonable restriction and not arbitrary on the materials shown.

Conclusion: The rejection of membership was valid and not shown to infringe Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of membership failed, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A recognised stock exchange performing public duties is amenable to Article 226, and its bona fide refusal to admit a candidate under its rules, based on suitability and the objects of the exchange, is a valid exercise of regulatory discretion and not an unconstitutional restriction.

---