RAJENDRA RATHOR Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STOCK EXCHANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question that arises for consideration and determination in these appeals is whether the M. P. Stock Exchange was "state" within the meaning of Article 12 and if not whether it could still be made amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) FOUR writ petitions (W. P. No. 1454 of 1993, 1928 of 1993, 1410 of 1995 and 493 of 1997) were filed by the writ petitioners claiming different reliefs against the respondent "exchange". A preliminary objection questioning their maintainability was taken on the plea that the respondent exchange was not "state" under Article 12 and thus, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The writ court formulated a question whether the stock exchange was a "state" under Article 12 and whether it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and upon a detailed discussion and analysis found that it was neither a "state" because the Central Government had no effective control or involvement in it nor was it otherwise amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because it did not discharge any public duty. The court consequently dismissed all the writ petitions as not maintainable.

(3.) THE writ petitioners are up in appeal against this. Their case expectedly is that the stock exchange was a "state" under Article 12 and alternatively otherwise amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, engaged as it was in discharge of public duty, responsibility and functions imposed on it under the relevant statute, and the rules/bye-laws.