IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.21686 OF 2006  

Mahesh Ratilal Shah .. Petitioner Vs.

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.   1. Claiming to be a Sub-broker with one Yogesh B.  

Mehta,  a  Member  of  the  Bombay  Stock  Exchange  

(hereinafter  referred  to  “BSE”),  the  petitioner  

herein filed a writ petition before the Bombay High  

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against  

the  Union  of  India,  the  Securities  and  Exchange  

Board  of  India  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

1

“SEBI”) and the BSE, inter alia, for a direction  

upon the Union of India and SEBI to withdraw the  

recognition  granted  to  BSE  for  alleged  non-

compliance with the provisions of Sections 7 and 9  

of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956  

(hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”).   A  

further  direction  was  also  sought  for  for  

cancellation of SEBI registration of all relevant  

90 members of the Stock Exchange for fraudulently  

inducing investors to trade in forged scrips of M/s  

Presto Finance Ltd. and to declare the Rules, Bye-

laws and Regulations of the BSE as illegal, void  

and  ultra  vires  the  1956  Act  as  also  the  

Constitution  of  India.    Various  ancillary  and  

interim reliefs were also prayed for connected with  

the main reliefs.  

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he had been  

induced by the BSE and its Members to buy 4,50,800  

shares  of  “Presto  Finance  Ltd.”  and  under  the  

2

assurance  of  the  Exchange,  he  had  deposited  the  

entire  purchase  amount,  amounting  to  

Rs.71,19,817.30  with  the  Exchange.   It  is  the  

Petitioner’s further case that the Exchange and its  

Members had intentionally and deliberately cheated  

him by giving him delivery of 1,56,100 forged share  

certificates and refused to cancel the said dealing  

when the same was discovered and instead asked the  

Petitioner  to  go  to  the  Liquidator  of  Presto  

Finance Ltd. for claiming damages.

3. Appearing  in  support  of  the  Special  Leave  

Petition, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocate,  

submitted  that  the  SEBI  as  a  statutory  body  

established under Section 3 of the Securities and  

Exchange  Board  of  India  Act,  1992  (hereinafter  

referred to as the “SEBI Act”), was empowered under  

Section 11 of the Act to protect the interests of  

the  investors  in  securities  and  to  promote  the  

development  of  and  to  regulate  the  securities  

3

market  by  such  measures  as  it  thought  fit  for  

prohibiting  fraudulent  and  unfair  trade  practice  

relating to the securities market.

4. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the BSE is a  

body  of  individuals  which  has  been  granted  

recognition as a “Stock Exchange” under Section 4  

of  the  1956  Act,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  

Section 9 thereof, to function as a Stock Exchange  

in Bombay.  Under Section 12 of the SEBI Act, SEBI  

has granted registration to the Members of the BSE  

to deal in the securities market in the country  

within  the  ambit  of  the  said  Act  and  the  

Regulations made thereunder.  Mr. Sharma submitted  

that the main object of the BSE is to protect the  

interests both of the brokers and dealers and of  

the public interested in securities. Rules, Bye-

laws and Regulations had, therefore, been framed by  

the  BSE  for  trading  and  settlement  of  shares  

through  the  BSE  terminal.   Mr.  Sharma  submitted  

4

that the said Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations were  

contrary to the provisions of the 1956 Act, and  

were, therefore, void and ultra-vires the Act and  

the  Constitution.   The  Writ  Petitioner  had,  

therefore, been compelled to move the High Court in  

its writ jurisdiction, inter alia, for the reliefs  

indicated hereinabove.  

5. Referring  to  the  Prospectus  of  M/s  Presto  

Finance Ltd., Mr. Sharma pointed out that since it  

had been indicated out therein that the shares of  

Presto Finance Ltd. were to be listed both on the  

Regional Exchange at Ahmedabad and in the BSE, the  

Petitioner and other investors were induced into  

investing in the shares of the company which were  

ultimately de-listed from trading in both the Stock  

Exchanges on account of fraudulent dealings, which  

left  the  Petitioner  holding  a  large  number  of  

forged shares traded by the Company from the BSE.  

Mr. Sharma urged that the BSE had completely failed  

5

to protect the interests of the investors as it was  

bound to do under Section 4 of the 1956 Act.  

6. Mr. Sharma contended that the very existence of  

the BSE and its activities must be held to have  

been vitiated from its very inception since it had  

failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4  

of the Act of 1956 relating to grant of recognition  

to Stock Exchanges by the Central Government and,  

in particular, Sub-section (3) thereof, which reads  

as follows :-

“4(3).  Every  grant  of  recognition  to  a  Stock Exchange under this section shall be  published in the Gazette of India and also  in the Official Gazette of the State in  which  the  principal  office  of  the  Stock  Exchange is situate, and such recognition  shall have effect as from the date of its  publication in the Gazette of India.”

7. Mr. Sharma submitted that since the recognition  

granted to BSE has neither been published in the  

Gazette of India or in the Official Gazette of the  

State, such recognition did not have any effect at  

6

all and in addition to the above, ever since its  

recognition, the BSE has not also complied with the  

provision of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act and  

framed Byelaws for the regulation and control of  

contracts with the previous approval of SEBI.  It  

was  submitted  that  Sub-section  (4)  of  Section  9  

also provides for publication of the Byelaws and  

reads as follows :-

“9(4).   Any  Bye-laws  made  under  this  section  shall  be  subject  to  such  conditions  in  regard  to  previous  publication as may be prescribed and when  approved  by  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Board of India in the Gazette of India and  in  which  the  principal  office  of  the  recognised Stock Exchange is situate, and  shall have effect as from the date of its  publication in the Gazette of India:  

Provided  that  if  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Board  of  India  Government  is  satisfied in any case that in the interest  of the trade or in the public interest any  Bye-law  should  be  made  immediately,  it  may,  by  order  in  writing  specifying  the  reasons  therefor,  dispense  with  the  condition of previous publication.”  

7

8. Referring  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Ritesh Agarwal vs. SEBI [(2008) 8 SCC 205], wherein  

the question as to whether proceedings should also  

be taken against minors in view of Section 11 of  

the Contract Act, 1872, was under consideration,  

this Court held that since the father of the minors  

had committed fraud in their names, it is he who  

should  have  been  proceeded  against.   Mr.  Sharma  

urged that once it was shown that a promoter had  

committed fraud, as in this case, in listing its  

shares  with  the  Exchange,  thereby  inducing  

investors to invest in such shares, it must be held  

that the Exchange had failed to comply with the  

provisions  of  clause  (a)  of  Sub-section  (1)  of  

Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which makes it mandatory  

that the Rules and Byelaws of a Stock Exchange have  

to be in conformity with such conditions as may be  

prescribed  with a view to ensure fair dealing and  to protect investors. [Emphasis supplied]

8

9. On  behalf  of  BSE,  Mr.  Shyam  Diwan,  learned  

Senior  Advocate,  submitted  that  all  Stock  

Exchanges, including the BSE, acted on the basis of  

information received from other Stock Exchanges in  

the country.  In the instant case, since the Scrip  

of Presto Finance Ltd. had been listed for trading  

on the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, the same were also  

listed for trading on the Bombay Stock Exchange,  

but as soon as information of fraud was received  

from  the  former  Stock  Exchange,  BSE  immediately  

stopped  trading  in  the  said  Scrip.   Mr.  Diwan  

submitted that it was required to be noted that the  

Petitioner had approached the Court ten years after  

the  incident,  which  in  itself,  was  sufficient  

ground for dismissal of the Writ Petition.  

10. Mr.  Diwan  submitted  that  the  BSE  had  been  

established in 1875 as “The Native Shares and Stock  

Brokers  Association”  and  was  the  first  Stock  

Exchange in the country which obtained permanent  

9

recognition in 1956 from the Government of India  

under the 1956 Act and had played a pivotal role in  

the development of the Indian Capital Market.  The  

recognition granted to the BSE was duly published  

by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, in  

its Stock Exchange Division in the Gazette of India  

dated  31st August,  1957.   Thereafter,  the  Stock  

Exchange  Rules,  Bye-laws  and  Regulations  were  

framed  in  1957  and  advance  print  of  the  same,  

together with all amendments up to date, was sent  

to the Government of India.  Receipt and approval  

of the same by the Government of India under the  

1956 Act was also conveyed to the Secretary of the  

Stock  Exchange  by  the  Deputy  Secretary  in  the  

Ministry  of  Finance,  Department  of  Economic  

Affairs, by his letter dated 1st May, 1959.  Mr.  

Diwan  submitted  that  the  Rules,  Regulations  and  

Bye-laws  of  the  Bombay  Stock  Exchange  had  been  

acted  upon  since  they  were  framed  and  the  

Petitioner also claims to have traded on the Stock  

10

Exchange as a Sub-broker through Yogesh Mehta, said  

to be a member of the Stock Exchange.  Mr. Diwan  

submitted  that  when  the  Rules,  Bye-laws  and  

Regulations had been continuously acted upon  for  

more than 50 years, it would be inequitable to hold  

that the same were not valid on account of non-

publication in the Official Gazette or the Gazette  

of India in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 9  

of the 1956 Act.  

 11. Mr. Diwan then urged that the scheme of Section  

4 of the 1956 Act relating to grant of recognition  

to Stock Exchanges, makes it clear that before such  

grant of recognition, the Central Government has to  

be satisfied that the Rules and Bye-laws of the  

Stock Exchange applying for registration were in  

conformity  with  such  conditions  as  might  be  

prescribed with a view to ensuring fair dealing and  

to  protect  investors.   Mr.  Diwan  submitted  that  

under  Section  9  of  the  1956  Act  the  recognized  

11

Stock Exchange is required to make Bye-laws for the  

regulation and control of contracts and any Bye-

laws made under the said section would be subject  

to  such  conditions  in  regard  to  previous  

publication  as  may  be  prescribed,  and,  when  

approved by SEBI, is to be published in the Gazette  

of India and also in the official Gazette of the  

State  in  which  the  principal  office  of  the  

recognized  Stock  Exchange  is  situate,  and  shall  

have effect as from the date of its publication in  

the Gazette of India.

12. Mr. Diwan reiterated that it would be amply  

clear from the above that the Rules and Bye-laws  

framed  by  the  Stock  Exchange  before  grant  of  

recognition under Section 4 were not required to be  

published in the manner indicated in Sub-Section  

(3)  of  Section  4  of  the  1956  Act.  Mr.  Diwan  

submitted  that  only  amendments  effected  to  the  

Rules and Bye-laws after grant of recognition would  

12

require publication as provided for in Sub-Section  

(4) of Section 9 of the above Act.  Mr. Diwan also  

urged that since the BSE had been functioning as  

perhaps the most important Stock Exchange in India,  

since it was granted permanent recognition in 1956,  

its performance over the past 33 years cannot be  

diluted  and  has  to  be  taken  into  consideration  

while considering the case sought to be made out by  

the Petitioner.  Learned counsel submitted that,  

although, the question now sought to be raised had  

not at any point of time been raised in this Court,  

the same question did arise before the Bombay High  

Court  in  Appeal  No.1101/98  arising  out  of  

Arbitration  Petition  No.130/98,  Stock  Exchange,  

Mumbai vs. Vijay Bubna & Ors., reported in 1999 (2)  

LJ 289.  In the said decision, where the primary  

issue was whether an Arbitral Tribunal constituted  

under the Bye-laws framed by the BSE under the 1956  

Act  was  in  contravention  of  the  provisions  of  

Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,  

13

1996, the question arose as to whether the said  

Bye-laws  of  the  BSE  required  publication  in  the  

Official  Gazette.   Upon  construction  of  the  

provisions  of  the  Bye-laws  of  the  BSE  and  the  

decision of this Court in  Dr. Indramani Pyarelal  

Gupta & Ors. Vs.  W.R. Natu & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC  

274], the High Court held that the Bye-laws of the  

BSE were subordinate legislation and that the same  

were  statutory  in  nature  having  the  force  of  

enactment within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of  

Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,  

1996.  Mr. Diwan drew our attention to paragraph 42  

of  the  judgment  in  which  reference  was  made  to  

another decision of the Bombay High Court in the  

case of  V.V. Ruia vs.  S. Dalmia [AIR 1968 Bombay  

347], where the question arose as to whether the  

Bye-laws of the BSE, which were made prior to its  

recognition  under  Section  4,  needed  publication  

under Sub-Section (4) of Section 9 of the 1956 Act.  

It was held that the Bye-laws made by the Bombay  

14

Stock  Exchange  prior  to  its  recognition  did  not  

require  publication  in  the  Official  Gazette,  on  

account  of  the  fact  that  for  the  purpose  of  

obtaining recognition from the Central Government,  

the Stock Exchange was required to submit a copy of  

the  Bye-laws  and  Rules  and  it  is  only  after  

scrutiny thereof that recognition was granted under  

Section 4.  It was also mentioned that if, after  

recognition, any subsequent Bye-law was made under  

Section  9  of  the  Act,  then,  by  virtue  of  Sub-

Section (4) of Section 9 such a post-recognition  

Bye-law required publication.

13. Mr. Diwan then referred to the decision in V.V.  

Ruia’s case (supra,) referred to by the Division  

Bench of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment,  

wherein it had been held that the Bye-laws made by  

the Stock Exchange prior to its recognition in 1956  

did not require publication under Section 9(4) of  

the 1956 Act.

15

14. Mr.  Diwan’s  next  contention  was  that  a  

procedure,  which  had  been  consistently  followed  

over a long period, should not be interfered with  

except for very compelling reasons as that could  

otherwise lead to chaos and unsettle the position  

which had been settled over such period.

15. Referring to the Three-Judge Bench decision of  

this Court in  Raj Narain Pandey & Ors. Vs.  Sant  

Prasad Tewari & Ors. [(1973) 2 SCC 35], Mr. Diwan  

submitted that while interpreting the doctrine of  

stare decisis, this Court had held that a decision  

of long-standing on the basis of which many persons  

would, in the course of time, have arranged their  

affairs,  should  not  lightly  be  disturbed  by  a  

superior  court  not  strictly  bound  itself  by  the  

decision.   It  was  further  observed  that  in  the  

matter of the interpretation of a local statute,  

the view taken by the High Court over a number of  

years  should  normally  be  adhered  to  and  not  

16

disturbed.  A  different  view  would  not  only  

introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion,  

it  would  also  have  the  effect  of  unsettling  

transactions which might have been entered into on  

the faith of those decisions. It was held that the  

doctrine of stare decisis can be aptly invoked in  

such a situation.

16. Apart from being guilty of delay and laches,  

Mr. Diwan submitted that the petitioner was himself  

in default, not being a registered sub-broker of  

the BSE, although, he claimed to be a sub-broker of  

Yogesh B. Mehta, a member of the Stock Exchange.  

Mr. Diwan submitted that the Special Leave Petition  

bristled  with  malice  in  law  and  was,  therefore,  

liable to be dismissed with costs.   

17. Mr.  Jaideep  Gupta,  learned  Advocate  who  

appeared for SEBI, took us through the letter dated  

1st August,  1996,  addressed  on  behalf  of  the  

Ahmedabad  Stock  Exchange  to  Shri  L.K.  Singhvi,  

17

Executive  Director,  SEBI,  informing  him  of  the  

Report of the Committee in the matter of Presto  

Finance Ltd.  In the said letter it was indicated  

that based on a number of complaints received from  

the investors in the scrip of Presto Finance Ltd.,  

a Special Committee consisting of three members,  

including  SEBI,  and  a  nominated  public  

representative,  had  been  constituted  and  after  

inquiry it had recommended that the trading in the  

scrip  of  Presto  Finance  Ltd.  should  not  be  

recommended  and  might  be  de-listed  permanently.  

Mr. Jaideep Gupta referred to the inquiry report of  

the  Assistant  Police  Inspector,  General  Branch,  

Crime  Branch,  C.I.D.,  Mumbai,  submitted  to  the  

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard  

Estate,  Mumbai,  stating  that  the  BSE  had  acted  

promptly and diligently to protect the interest of  

the  market  and  as  such  no  offence  had  been  

committed by BSE and those who were involved in the  

transactions of the shares of Presto Finance Ltd.  

18

in 1996.  It was stated that on the contrary, the  

complainant was not a registered sub-broker of the  

Bombay Stock Exchange and had himself violated the  

provisions of Section 23(h) of the 1956 Act, as he  

had also dealt with the above transactions as sub-

broker, without being registered with the BSE.

18. Mr.  Gupta  submitted  that  based  on  the  

complaints received from various investors relating  

to  the  issuance  of  fake  and  forged  share  

certificates of M/s. Presto Finance Ltd., the Stock  

Exchange,  Ahmedabad,  had  constituted  a  Special  

Committee, as indicated hereinabove, and had found  

the Managing Director and other Directors of the  

company  to  be  guilty  of  irregularities.  

Accordingly, in a proceeding under Section 11B of  

the  SEBI  Act,  1992,  SEBI  had  taken  stringent  

measures against the Managing Director and other  

Directors  of  the  company  for  having  received  

payments for issuance of fake and forged shares of  

19

the company.  Mr. Gupta pointed out that on such  

finding, in the interest of investors in securities  

and the securities market, SEBI had debarred Shri  

Hitendra Vasa and the companies promoted by him and  

the group companies of M/s. Presto Finance Ltd.,  

from accessing the capital market for a period of  

five years with effect from 22nd April, 1998.

19. Mr. Gupta submitted that as far as SEBI was  

concerned,  on  receipt  of  information  about  the  

fraudulent  share  scrips  issued  by  M/s.  Presto  

Finance Ltd., immediate steps had been by SEBI to  

have the share scrips of the said company de-listed  

from the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange as well as from  

the Bombay Stock Exchange.

20.  Mr. Gupta submitted that no fault could be  

found  with  BSE  in  listing  the  shares  of  Presto  

Finance Ltd., since the same had been listed on the  

Ahmedabad Stock Exchange earlier, but as soon as  

information was received from the Ahmedabad Stock  

20

Exchange  that  there  was  an  element  of  fraud  

involved, and the scrips had been delisted in the  

Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, BSE took immediate steps  

to delist the scrips and to close trading of the  

said  shares  in  order  to  protect  the  securities  

market  and  the  investors  who  traded  in  such  

securities.  Mr. Gupta submitted that the entire  

allegations  made  by  the  petitioner  against  the  

Bombay Stock Exchange was devoid of any merit and  

did  not  warrant  any  interference  in  these  

proceedings.

21. As  would  be  evident  from  the  pleadings  and  

submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  respective  

parties, the main question which we are called upon  

to  consider  is  whether  in  the  absence  of  

publication of the Rules and Bye-laws of the Bombay  

Stock Exchange, which had been framed prior to its  

recognition  in  1956  under  the  1956  Act,  its  

activities could be said to be without authority.  

21

The further question which falls for consideration  

is whether it can be said, as has been urged on  

behalf  of  the  petitioner,  that  in  listing  the  

shares of M/s. Presto Finance Ltd. on the Stock  

Exchange, the Bombay Stock Exchange had acted in a  

manner which failed to ensure fair dealing and to  

protect the investors.

22. As we have noticed hereinbefore, the scrip of  

M/s. Presto Finance Ltd. was listed on the Bombay  

Stock  Exchange  after  it  had  been  listed  in  the  

Stock  Exchange  at  Ahmedabad  and  on  receipt  of  

information  thereof.  However,  as  soon  as  

information was received that the said company was  

involved in fraudulent dealing of its scrip, again  

on intimation from the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange,  

the  said  scrip  was  delisted  and  debarred  from  

trading by the BSE.  In our view, the Bombay Stock  

Exchange had not acted in a manner which tended to  

22

promote the share scrip of M/s. Presto Finance Ltd.  

with any  malafide  motive.  Apart from the above,  

the delay of 10 years in approaching the High Court  

over the transactions in the said scrip cannot be  

ignored since, as observed by this Court in  Raj  

Narain  Pandey’s  case  (supra)  a  long  standing  

decision  should  not  be  easily  interfered  with,  

having  regard  to  the  fact  that  over  the  years,  

people  have  already  settled  their  business  in  

accordance  therewith.   Except  for  the  bald  

allegations  that  the  Bombay  Stock  Exchange  had  

acted  in  a  manner  which  was  contrary  to  the  

interest of the securities market and investors in  

listing  the  share  scrips  of  M/s.  Presto  Finance  

Ltd.  for  trading,  there  is  nothing  else  to  

establish any ulterior motive on the part of the  

aforesaid Stock Exchange in listing the said scrip  

and, in fact, in terms of remedial measures the  

Stock Exchange also invited all those who had been  

23

given  forged  scrips,  to  submit  the  same  to  the  

Stock Exchange for further action.  

23. On the question of non-publication of the Bye-

laws, we agree with the views of the Bombay High  

Court in  V.V. Ruia’s case (supra) that since the  

said Rules and Bye-laws had been in existence from  

long before the enactment of 1956 Act and the grant  

of recognition to the Stock Exchange, the same did  

not require publication in terms of Section 4 of  

the 1956 Act.  In any event, as has been submitted  

by Mr. Diwan on behalf of the BSE, all amendments  

to  the  Rules  and  Bye-laws  made  after  grant  of  

recognition had been duly published in the Gazette.  

24. Upon  considering  the  case  made  out  by  the  

petitioner in the writ petition, the Bombay High  

Court  held  that  the  writ  petition,  which  was  

lacking  in  particulars  relating  to  the  

constitutional challenge, was not the appropriate  

remedy for the petitioner, who, along with a member  

24

of the Stock Exchange, had traded in the shares of  

the above-mentioned company.  The High Court also  

observed  that  upon  the  complaints  made  to  SEBI,  

action had been initiated against the Company as  

far back as in 1998-99 under Section 11B of the  

SEBI Act and SEBI had come to a finding that all  

the  Directors  of  the  Company,  including  one  

Hitendra Vasa, were guilty of dealing in fake and  

bogus shares and cheating the investing public at  

large.   The High Court also observed that the  

market regulator had taken due steps in the matter  

of individual transactions and the remedy of the  

petitioner, who was aggrieved by the acts of the  

promoters of the company in question, as well as  

its  Directors,  would  be  in  approaching  the  

appropriate Court to initiate criminal prosecution  

against the offenders.  Observing that it would not  

be  appropriate  to  issue  any  blanket  writ,  as  

claimed by the Petitioner, when admittedly his case  

was restricted to dealing in shares of one of the  

25

companies listed at the Stock Exchange, the High  

Court summarily dismissed the writ petition.  While  

doing  so,  the  High  Court  also  noted  that  no  

material had been produced by the petitioner for  

issuing directions for de-recognition of the BSE or  

to declare its Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations to  

be illegal, void and ultra vires.   

25. Agreeing with the views expressed by the High  

Court, we are of the view that the Petitioner has  

not been able to make out any case of malafides or  

irregularity  on  the  part  of  the  Bombay  Stock  

Exchange with regard to the listing and subsequent  

de-listing of the scrip of M/s Presto Finance Ltd.  

and we are also of the view that the publication of  

the Rules and Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange was  

not  intended  in  the  Securities  Contract  

(Regulation) Act, 1956, as otherwise some provision  

would have been made in the Act with regard to pre-

recognition Rules and Bye-laws.   While the Act  

26

provides for publication of amendments to the Rules  

and Bye-laws after grant of recognition, the Act is  

silent with regard to the publication of the pre-

recognition Rules or Bye-laws which were already in  

existence and had been acted upon all along.  

26. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to  

interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court  

impugned in the present Special Leave Petition and  

the same is, therefore, dismissed, but without any  

order as to costs.   

27. Before  parting,  we  would,  however,  indicate  

that  even  if  the  1956  Act  did  not  contemplate  

publication of the pre-recognition Rules and Bye-

laws,  the  position  is  and  would  continue  to  be  

rather ambivalent if the amended Rules and Bye-laws  

were published in the Official Gazette while the  

main  Rules  and  Bye-laws  remain  unpublished.   It  

may, therefore, be in the fitness of things to have  

the said Rules and Bye-laws also published in the  

27

Official Gazette and the State Gazette to prevent  

questions similar to those raised in this Special  

Leave Petition from being raised in future.  

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, Dated: 19.01.2010.

28