( 1 ) THESE two petitions raise identical issues and are therefore, decided by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS have challenged issuance of summons to them by the Security and exchange Board of India (for short SEBI)-respondent to appear, before the Invesitgating authority u/s. 11 (3) of the SEBI Act. The contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the CEBI Act and under the provisions that have been referred to in the summons, petitioners can called upon to furnish information nor an enquiry can be made against them. Their case is that the petitioners in both the cases are purchasers of securities namely shares of Mr. Madanlal B Purohit listed at Stock Exchange, Bombay. Merely because as investors they have dealt with those shares through Stock Brokers at stock Exchange, Bombay, they do not fall in category of person against whom inquiry can be instituted or from whom information can be called or discovery of documents can be made. Leanred counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments relies on the statutory provisions contained in section-11, sub-section (2) clause (i) read with sections 11b and 12 of the SEBI Act. He contends that the combined reading of these provision leads to only one conclusion that only person who are covered by these provisions are stock exchanges, mutual funds, other persons associated with the securities market and intermediaries and self-regulatory organisations in the securities market. The persons referred to as "associated with the securites market, according to the learned counsel, refers only to persons enumerated in clause (ba) of sub-section (2) which has been inserted by the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 1995 with effect from 25. 1. 1995. His further contention is that section 11b confers on the SEBI power to issue directions in pursuance of any inquiry. For the present purpose, his argument is that such directions can be issued to any person or class of persons referred to in section 12 and persons referred to in section 12 does not include the investors like the petitioners. To buttress this argument, a reference was also made to object of the bill for amending the Securities laws in India.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent urged that reading of the provisions of section 11 without reading sub-section (1) and without referring to the provisions of (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices releting to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995 which have been framed under the powers conferred under Sec. 30 of the SEBI Act which has come into force after the same were placed before the Parliament for its approval, have a statutory force. It was also urged that object of SEBI Act is to secure a check on the mal-practice prevalant in dealing of the securities to protect the interest of investors. The provisions which have been made to achieve this object should not be read in a narrow and pedantic manner but full effect should be given to the provision to make it effective to fulfil the object. It was also urged that if language of the statute is clear, reference to the object clause of the bill is not permissible. It was further urged that the power has been conferred in widest possible aptitute in the matter of calling of information in the form of statement or documents by extending provisions of Civil procedure Code while trying a suit regarding discovery and production of the books of account and other documents and summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath, apartfrom inspection of any books, registers and other documents of any person referred to in section 12 of the Act.

( 4 ) FOR examining the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of sections 11, 11b and Section 12. Section 11 (1) imposes paramount duty on the Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, and for a