Public function and alternative remedy principles shaped writ maintainability against recognised stock exchanges.

Recognised stock exchanges operating under substantial statutory regulation and governmental control were treated as performing public functions, so they are amenable to writ jurisdiction and fall within Article 12. However, where the dispute arises from notified securities transactions and an efficacious special forum is available under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, the writ court should ordinarily decline to intervene. Applying self-restraint, the Court held that the petitioner had to pursue the statutory remedy before the Special Court, and the writ petition was not maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether recognised stock exchanges are authorities discharging public functions and are amenable to writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.

Issue (i): whether recognised stock exchanges are authorities discharging public functions and are amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The stock exchanges were found to operate under substantial statutory regulation and pervasive governmental control under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Their objects and functions were treated as serving public interest in regulating securities dealings, protecting investors, and maintaining fair trading practices. In that setting, the Court held that they perform public functions and cannot be excluded from writ scrutiny merely because they are incorporated bodies.

Conclusion: Yes. The stock exchanges are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.

Analysis: The Court held that the Act created a special forum with wide jurisdiction over matters arising from notified transactions and related grievances, and that a person aggrieved by action taken on the basis of the notification could approach that forum. The dispute involved factual questions concerning the effect of the notification on the petitioner-company and the stock exchanges' actions taken pursuant to it. Applying the settled rule of self-restraint where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the parties to pursue the Special Court remedy.

Conclusion: No. The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory forum.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only on the question of the stock exchanges' amenability to writ jurisdiction, but the Court refused to entertain the writ on merits because an appropriate statutory forum was available under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Bodies functioning under deep statutory and governmental control and performing public functions can be amenable to writ jurisdiction, but the writ court should ordinarily decline to entertain a dispute covered by an efficacious special statutory forum created for that very class of grievances.

---