MIDAS TOUCH INVESTORS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 Securities & Exchanges Board of India (SEBI) (i) to implement the Delisting Regulations, as enunciated in the Circular dated 29th December, 2008, in true letter and spirit and in a time bound manner, with respect to all the Regional Stock Exchanges (RSEs) including those which have been derecognized; (ii) to restore the fundamental rights of the shareholders of 5152 companies which were exclusively listed at RSEs which have been derecognized; (iii) to direct all RSEs, including the derecognized stock exchanges, to issue orders of delisting individually for all 5152 companies exclusively listed on those RSEs and who have failed to get themselves listed at Nationwide stock exchanges, either on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) or National Stock Exchange (NSE); and, (iv) to frame a proper mechanism to compensate shareholders of companies listed on RSEs who have suffered huge loss due to derecognition of various RSEs. Axiomatically, the petition also impugns the Circulars dated 30th May, 2012 and 22nd May, 2014 of the respondent no.2 SEBI with respect to the Exit Policy for derecognized stock exchanges and companies exclusively listed therewith.

(2.) The petition is claimed to be filed for the benefit of investors/shareholders of the companies exclusively listed on RSEs which have been derecognized. It is the plea of the petitioner that the said investors/shareholders are unable to individually approach for redressal. The petitioner however, though claiming to have been working for investors' protection and further claiming to be a leader well recognized in the said field/subject, has not pleaded having received a single complaint from any of the shareholders for whose benefit the petition is filed. Being of the view that considering the subject matter, the petition is not required to be entertained as a PIL, we on the very first date when the petition came up before us heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsels for the respondents appearing on advance notice and reserved judgment.

(3.) The counsels for the respondents placed before us a copy of our order dated 8th July, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.3952/2014 titled Atul Agarwal Vs. Union of India, also filed as a PIL for the benefit of shareholders of the companies listed on RSEs which were then sought to be derecognized and which writ petition was dismissed observing that the legal tool of PIL was not invented for such like matters. It was further observed that ample provision had been made for the said shareholders and the shareholders could not be said to be socially or economically backward to be unable to access justice themselves. It was thus the contention of the counsels for the respondents that this petition also is not entertainable as a PIL.