Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to direct broad regulatory policy; courts may only correct specific administrative action.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be used to direct regulatory bodies to frame or modify broad policy on share pricing or premium; the court may examine and remedy specific administrative actions pleaded within the four corners of a petition but must refrain from issuing general policy directions that fall within the exclusive domain of the executive/regulators. Consequently, wide-ranging requests in a public interest petition for regulatory policy formulation were rejected and relief was denied to the petitioner in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, can issue broad general directions in a public interest petition directing regulatory bodies to frame or modify policy relating to the pricing/premium of shares.

Analysis: The petition sought general directions to regulatory bodies concerning computation, disclosure and restriction of share premium and sought wide policy measures. The legal framework invoked includes Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the source of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The matter raised pertains to broad policy decisions and market regulation, which are within the exclusive domain of the Government and regulatory authorities. Writ jurisdiction permits examination of specific actions complained of within the four corners of the petition; it does not extend to issuing general policy directions to governmental or regulatory bodies in the absence of a particularized challenge to a discrete action.

Conclusion: In favour of Respondent.

---