JUDGMENT :

1. Saurashtratra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited is in appeal under Section of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, (for short, 'the Act') against the judgment and order dated July, passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Appellate Tribunal') whereby its appeal was dismissed.

2. The appellant was granted recognition in as Stock Exchange under the Act. The recognition was renewed from time to time; the last of such renewal being in 2006. On February,, the appellant was issued show cause notice by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to show cause as to why its recognition be not withdrawn under Section(1) of the Act. The show cause notice indicated diverse failures and non-compliances on the part of the appellant. The appellant responded to the show cause notice. The full time member of SEBI, vide his order dated July,, ordered withdrawal of recognition of the appellant and further directed that the trading members of the appellant shall cease to be its trading members and therefore liable to be de-registered as stock brokers and, therefore, their certificate of registration granted by SEBI shall stand automatically cancelled. The appellant was restrained from transferring or alienating any moveable or immovable property of the Exchange including Bank Account in any manner till further directions by SEBI in this regard. The appellant was also restrained from using the expression 'stock exchange' or any variant in its name or in its subsidiary's name.

3. The appellant challenged the above order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on July,.

4. The appellant challenged the order dated July, 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order dated July, passed by the full time member of SEBI by filing a Special Civil Application under Article of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court. Diverse grounds were raised in challenging these orders. The appellant took up the position before the High Court that the remedy of appeal against the order dated July, 2007 cannot be said to be appropriate redressal of the grievances of the appellant and the matter should be considered by the High Court. Inter alia, a specific plea was raised by the appellant before the High Court that the full time single member of SEBI had no jurisdiction to cancel or withdraw recognition granted to it and withdrawal of recognition under Section of the Act by the whole time single member of SEBI was unjust, arbitrary and de hors the provisions of the statute.

5. The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application vide order dated November , and considered the submission of the appellant in the following manner:-

"Section A is reproduced hereunder :-

29A. Power to delegate.

The Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct that the powers (except the power under section) exercisable by it under any provision of this Act shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, be exercisable also by the Securities and Exchange Board of India or the Reserve Bank of India constituted under section of the Reserve Bank of India Act, (2 of).

Notification dated 13th September, issued by the Central Government reads as under :-

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 29A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, (42 of), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers exercisable by it under section, sub-section (1),(2),(3) and (4) of section, section, sub-section (2) of section A, section, sub-section (2) of section, section and sub-section (2) of section of the Act shall also be exercisable by the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992 reads as under :-

The Board may, by general or special order in writing delegate to any member, officer of the Board or any other person subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, s