Writ jurisdiction declined where arbitration was withdrawn, later revived belatedly, and grievance enforcement was seen as being delayed.

A writ petition challenging Clause 7 of a SEBI circular was not entertained because the petitioner had first elected arbitration, then unconditionally withdrawn that intimation, and only later sought to revive arbitration after the prescribed timeline and after defaulter proceedings had begun. The Court treated the petition as an attempt to delay enforcement of investor grievance directions, noted the petitioner's asserted inability to pay or secure the amount, and declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The constitutional challenge to Clause 7 was not examined on merits, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging Clause 7 of the SEBI circular could be entertained and whether the petitioner was entitled to the discretionary relief sought.

Analysis: The challenge arose in the context of an investor grievance order, a withdrawn request for arbitration, a belated attempt to revive arbitration after issuance of a show-cause notice, and the petitioner's repeated inability to secure the amount directed by the grievance mechanism. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially elected arbitration, then unconditionally withdrew that intimation, and later sought to revive it beyond the prescribed timeline after the defaulter process had commenced. The Court further recorded that the petitioner claimed inability to pay or secure the amount and viewed the petition as an attempt to delay enforcement of the grievance directions. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The constitutional challenge to Clause 7 was not examined on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, with costs, in favour of the respondents.

---