Writ jurisdiction and SEBI interim powers upheld despite alternate remedy and hearing objections

An appellate remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; the Court may still intervene where immediate relief is needed and appellate recourse would be ineffective. The interim regulatory direction was upheld as a valid interim measure, and the absence of a pre-decisional hearing did not vitiate it on the facts. The Chairman's action was also sustained because the Board had delegated authority to act under the Act and regulations. Section 11B was construed as an enabling investor-protection provision carrying incidental and ancillary power to issue interim directions pending inquiry, and that construction supported the restraint imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the availability of an alternate remedy barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the impugned interim direction could be sustained in the absence of a pre-decisional hearing and when issued by the Chairman; and (iii) whether section 11B empowered SEBI to pass interim directions pending inquiry and whether the Chairman was authorised to act.

Issue (i): whether the availability of an alternate remedy barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. It is a rule of discretion and convenience, and the Court may still intervene where the circumstances justify it. On the facts, the petitioners were faced with an order that was to operate immediately and effective appellate relief could not realistically be pursued before it took effect.

Conclusion: In favour of the Petitioner. The writ petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the alternate remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned interim direction could be sustained in the absence of a pre-decisional hearing and when issued by the Chairman.

Analysis: The direction was treated as an interim regulatory measure and not as a suspension or cancellation of registration under the penalty provisions. In that setting, the Court held that the principles of natural justice were not shown to have been violated at the interim stage. The challenge that the order was invalid merely because it was issued by the Chairman was also not accepted, since the Board had delegated power to the Chairman to take action under the Act and regulations.

Conclusion: Against the Petitioner. The interim direction was not invalid on the ground of want of prior hearing or want of authority in the Chairman.

Issue (iii): whether section 11B empowered SEBI to pass interim directions pending inquiry and whether the Chairman was authorised to act.

Analysis: Section 11B was construed as an enabling provision designed to protect investors and preserve market integrity. The Court held that such a provision carries incidental and ancillary powers necessary to make it effective, including the power to issue interim directions in aid of the eventual decision. The Board's delegated authority also supported action by the Chairman in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Against the Petitioner. Section 11B was held to authorise interim directions pending inquiry and the Chairman's action was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed, but the petitioners obtained no substantive interim protection against the regulatory restraint, save for the limited permission recorded in the order.

Ratio Decidendi: An enabling regulatory power enacted to protect investors and the integrity of the securities market includes incidental authority to pass interim directions pending inquiry, and the availability of an appellate remedy does not by itself oust writ jurisdiction.

---