Operating a collective investment scheme without registration from SEBI, in violation of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations, can lead to the sealing of business premises and prohibition on bank account operation.

Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned senior counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the SEBI, learned AAG Mr. Ajit Kumar for the State, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned ASGI representing the Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the RBI.

2. Both the writ petitions have been preferred with a prayer to unseal the petitioners' office and permit him to carry on his business without any hindrance or obstruction; further return the documents seized by the respondent district authorities of the State of Jharkhand and also to allow the petitioner No. 1 to operate its bank account. Petitioners have also made prayer for restraining the respondents from taking further coercive steps.

3. Earlier, when the matter was taken up on 20th March, 2013, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State, submitted on instruction, that the present petitioners are one of the 27 companies who were asked to, furnish details about certain queries relating to their operation and on their failure to respond, their office premises were inspected and sealed in the district of Deoghar; report to that effect was also sent to various authorities including RBI as well as SEBI. In such circumstances, this Court directed impleadment of the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India and DGM, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Kolkata as party respondents and the counsel for the petitioners were allowed to make necessary correction in the body of the writ petitions during the course of the day. Notices were directed to be issued under registered cover upon the newly added respondents and additionally, through FAX by the Registry of the Court. This Court adjourned the matter for 10th of April, 2013 for considering the question of unsealing of the premises of the petitioners when other similar matters were also listed. On 10th of April, 2013, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, informed that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th March, 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos. 13660/13 and 13661/13 and the certified copy of the order dated 5th April, 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was produced before the Court, which reads as under :

"The High Court is expected to take up the matter on 10.4.2013 which is already fixed and pass appropriate orders.

List the matters on 15.4.2013."

4. On perusal of the order, it appeared that the order dated 20th March passed by this Court had not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It however transpired upon perusal of the writ petition that though the said additions were made in the array of the respondents as directed by the order dated 20th March, 2013, but they had been struck off. In these circumstances, following order was passed on 10th April. 2013.

"By the last order dated 20th March, 2013, this Court directed addition of certain parties in the instant writ applications, for which counsel for the petitioners was allowed to make necessary correction in the body of the writ petitions during the course of the day. It appears from perusal of the writ petition that though, the said additions were made in the array of the respondents, but have been struck off. It further appears that the petitioners had challenged the instant order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos. 13660/13 and 13661/13 and the following order has been passed which is quoted hereunder:

"The High Court is expected to take up the matter on 10.4.2013 which is already fixed and pass appropriate orders.

List the matters on 15.4.2013."

Apparently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the order dated 20.03.2013. This Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case, thought it proper to direct the petitioners to implead the said party.

However, in the interest of justice, counsel for the petitioners is directed to add the said parties in the main body of the writ petitions wit