Self-regulatory organisation eligibility and hearing rights: licence under Section 25(1) sufficed, but selection required prior hearing.

A licence under Section 25(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was sufficient to enable an application for recognition as a self-regulatory organisation under the SEBI (Self Regulatory Organizations) Regulations, 2004, because the scheme allowed registration under Section 25(2) to be completed within the permitted time and did not require prior registration. SEBI was also required to afford the unsuccessful applicant a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Regulation 10 before selecting another applicant and granting in-principle approval, since selection of one applicant necessarily entailed rejection of the others. The impugned selection was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a group or association holding only a licence under Section 25(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, but not yet registered under Section 25(2), could validly apply for recognition as a self-regulatory organisation under the SEBI (Self Regulatory Organizations) Regulations, 2004. (ii) Whether SEBI was bound to afford the unsuccessful applicant an opportunity of hearing under Regulation 10 before selecting and granting in-principle approval to another applicant.

Issue (i): Whether a group or association holding only a licence under Section 25(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, but not yet registered under Section 25(2), could validly apply for recognition as a self-regulatory organisation under the SEBI (Self Regulatory Organizations) Regulations, 2004.

Analysis: Regulation 3, read with the definition of "company" in Regulation 2(1)(e), the eligibility condition in Regulation 4(a), and the curing mechanism in Regulation 6, showed that the regulatory scheme treated a licence under Section 25(1) as sufficient to enable an application, while registration under Section 25(2) could be completed within the time allowed. Reading Regulation 3 as requiring prior registration under Section 25(2) would render Regulation 4(a) redundant. The special regulatory framework also displaced reliance on the general proposition that an unincorporated entity has no legal existence for all purposes.

Conclusion: Yes. An applicant holding a licence under Section 25(1) was eligible to apply, and SEBI was justified in entertaining the application.

Issue (ii): Whether SEBI was bound to afford the unsuccessful applicant an opportunity of hearing under Regulation 10 before selecting and granting in-principle approval to another applicant.

Analysis: Regulation 10 required a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an application was rejected. In the single-SRO regime introduced for mutual fund distributors, selection of one applicant necessarily meant rejection of the others. The provision could not be confined to a later stage after grant of in-principle approval to the selected applicant, because that would defeat the text and purpose of the regulation and create uncertainty in the selection process. The hearing obligation therefore arose at the stage when SEBI decided not to grant recognition to the unsuccessful applicant.

Conclusion: Yes. SEBI had to hear the unsuccessful applicant before making the selection and granting in-principle approval, and its failure to do so vitiated the decision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on the eligibility point but succeeded on the natural justice point, so the impugned selection was set aside and the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special regulatory scheme permits an application by an entity holding the requisite licence and also provides for rejection of unsuccessful applications after hearing, the hearing requirement must be applied at the stage of selection itself when one applicant is chosen in preference to others.

---