VENEET AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The principal relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under :

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that according to the Parliamentary proceedings, the copy of the Notification containing Rules and Regulations was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 27th November, 1992. It was thereafter removed from the Lok Sabha and placed in the library on the very same day. In so far as the Rajya Sabha is concerned, it was laid on the table of the House on 16th december, 1992 and thereafter it was removed from Rajya Sabha and was placed in the Library also on the very same day. It is then set out that both the Houses of Parliament viz. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned sine die and prorogued as on 23rd December, 1992. It is submitted that all the proceedings pending in the Houses would also lapse alongwith the closure of the Session of the House. Reliance is placed on the parliamentary proceedings dated 16-12-1992. The new session of both the Houses of Parliament started on 22-2-1993. The Rules and Regulations were never re-laid either in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. It is therefore submitted that the respondents did not follow the mandatory requirements of section 31 of the securities and Exchange Act, 1992 and consequently, the Regulations are illegal and ultra vires the SEBI Act, 1992 as also the provisions of the Constitution of India, and consequently all the actions, orders and directions issued by the respondents against the petitioner under the said Rules and Regulations were illegal and liable to be quashed. It is next submitted that Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of business and it can only be restricted by a valid and reasonable restriction. It is therefore submitted that all actions taken by the respondents against the petitioner have to be quashed and set aside being illegal, null and void.

(3.) THE respondents have not filed reply, but have relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Uttarachal High Court passed in the case of (Manwar Singh Rawat v. Union of India and another), decided on 17-10-2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 606 (M/b) of 2002. Reliance is also placed on the reply filed on behalf of the Union of India before the said High Court. In the said reply, which was considered by the learned High Court, reference is made to the procedure and conduct of business of Lok Sabha and Rajya sabha. It is set out that when the statute provides that the orders framed thereunder should be laid on the table of the House for a certain period which may be comprised in one or two or more Sessions, the orders after having been laid initially in a Session are deemed to lie in the succeeding Sessions till the specified period is completed. Reference was made to the letter dated 9-10-1992 issued by the Rajya Sabha Secretariate. In the said letter under signature of K. K. Thakur, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, it is set out that the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws which are required to be laid in the Houses were sent by the Ministries/department concerned directly to the Parliament Secretariate which take necessary action to list them for laying/re-laying, wherever necessary, in the Agenda paper of the respective houses. It was therefore pointed out that the said information could be received from the Secretariate of the two Houses. It was however pointed out that no motion for modification/rejection of the impugned Regulations was moved in either of the Houses after the Regulations were placed in the Lok sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 27th November, 1992 and 16th December, 1992 respectively. The fifth Session of Parliament started on 24-11-1992 and was closed sine die on 23-12-1992. There were only 18 actual sitting days. The parliamentary secretariat had issued a notice known as list of business amongst the then members of Parliament in 1992 declaring that contents of the impugned Regulations were published in the Notification no. GSR/780/ (E) in Extra Ordinary Gazette in 1992 and would be laid in the House for approval as on 27-11 -1992. The Hon'ble State Finance Minister accordingly laid the Regulations in the Lok Sabha as on 27-11-1992 and in the Rajya Sabha as on 16-12-1992. The Regulations, it was pointed out had been tabled in both the Houses in terms of the Rules of the Houses and that there was no legal infirmity. In answer to grievance made by the petitioner, though no relief on that count is sought, that the respondents had retained with them large amount of money, the letter dated 22nd June, 2004 addressed by the Legal Officer of securities and Exchange Board of India has been placed on record. The letter sets out that the petitioner's fee liability is totalling to Rs. 18,36,993/- and further that the SEBI has not received any payment of Rs. 32,81,474/- either from NSE or the petitioner.