The regulatory measures alone were not sufficient to establish the company as an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

SHANMUGAM, J. :- Both these matters raise a common question viz. whether the Cochin Stock Exchange Limited, a Company

registered under the Companies Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction?

2. The facts of each case can be briefly stated as follows

3. W.A. No. 925/1994 : The appellant and the 4th respondent are members of Cochin Stock Exchange. They had dealings in the purchase and sales of shares during the period 1988 to 1990. Based on the claim of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent viz. the Cochin Stock Exchange issued a notice informing him that an arbitration complaint had been received against him. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the claim stating that the claim was time barred under Cl. 303 of the Bye-laws of the 1st respondent. The appellant later received information to the effect that the 1st respondent Management had condoned the delay in filling the arbitration complaint. Before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings the appellant approached this Court seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices and the complaints contained in Exts. P1, P2, P4 and P5. The learned Judge dismissed the O.P. holding that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the claim is purely based on contractual obligation, besides holding that the petitioner has got alternative effective remedies. The appeal is filed against this order.

4. O.P. No. 6957/ 1995 : The petitioner who joined the 1st respondent Cochin Stock Exchange Limited as a Trainee in the Administrative Department, was working as General Manager (Finance, Auditing and Listing). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the ground of dereliction, collusion and negligence in the discharge of duties and functions and failure to maintain surveillance, in April, 1995 culminating in the termination of services of the petitioner, which was communicated on 29-4-1995. The petitioner has challenged these proceedings by praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari by calling for the records leading up to the proceedings of termination of service of the petitioner and to quash them same and for consequential reliefs.

5. When the matter was taken up the counsel agreed to advance the arguments only on the maintainability of the writ petition. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Cochin Stock Exchange Limited, is as authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and whether it is amenable to writ jurisdiction?

6. The main points raised on behalf of the petitioners are (1) Cochin Stock Exchange Limited registered under the Companies Act, the various articles of Memorandum of Association of the Company would show that the Company is under the Control, of the Central Government. (2) The Cochin Stock Exchange discharges public duty and therefore, would come under the definition of 'other authority'. (3) The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act of 1956 and the rules made thereunder have a deep and pervasive control over the Cochin Stock Exchange and therefore, it is an authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of these points the learned counsel took us through the various provisions of the Memorandum of Association. According to them, Art. 2 of the Memorandum of Association dealing with membership is subject to provisions of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and rules framed thereunder. Art. 6 dealing with eligibility for membership provides for the admission of Corporations, owned by the Government. Art.8 states that a person is eligible to be elected as a member only if he satisfied the requirement of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and rules framed thereunder. Art. 105 dealing with Council of Management provides that it must be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The sub-clause to Art. 106 provides for the Central Government to nominate one or mo