Writ interference with SEBI proceedings declined where statutory appeals existed and alleged procedural defects were not jurisdictional.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging SEBI proceedings, including the appointment of an enquiry officer, enquiry notices, the report and a show-cause notice, was held not fit for interference at that stage. The court treated the complaint of non-compliance with Regulation 13 of the FUTP Regulations as, at most, an irregularity or erroneous exercise of power, not a total absence of jurisdiction, especially since the petitioners had participated in the proceedings and had efficacious statutory remedies by appeal to the SAT under Section 15T and a further appeal under Section 15Z.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge the SEBI proceedings and whether the impugned notice was ex facie without jurisdiction so as to justify interference despite the availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The petition challenged SEBI's appointment of an enquiry officer, the notices issued in the enquiry, the enquiry report and the subsequent show-cause notice. The Court noted that the petitioners had participated in the SEBI proceedings and had already raised their objections before the Board. It held that the complaint regarding non-compliance with the regulatory procedure for issuance of the notice under Regulation 13 of the FUTP Regulations was, at the highest, a question of irregularity or erroneous exercise of power and not a case of total absence of jurisdiction. The Court also placed weight on the existence of an efficacious statutory appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15T and a further appeal under Section 15Z, and declined to decide the merits at the writ stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for interference at that stage and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies and to have their objections considered by SEBI.

---