Shri Joby Mathew, learned representative of Respondent No.1 submitted that the Appellant’s application for renewal was received in the Respondent’s office on 9.1.2002 from NSDL, that vide letter dated 16.4.2002 the Appellant was advised to call on the concerned officer on 23.4.2002. He submitted that the Respondent’s query as to whether the Appellant was connected with Shri Dinesh Dalmia was in the context of certain ongoing investigations and after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, renewal was granted to the Appellant, with certain conditions including the impugned one. He submitted that the Respondent has not rejected the application, that only certain conditions in the interest of the investors in the securities market were put, which the Respondent is empowered under the Regulations, that requirement of the Appellant being heard arises only in the case of rejection of a request for registration and , not in case of grant of registration. He submitted that Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) requires the Respondent to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market, by such measures as it thinks fit, that the legislature has thus cast a duty on the Respondent protect the interest of investors by adopting appropriate measures. He referred to section 12 of the Act requiring the intermediaries including DPs to get registered with the Respondent, that these intermediaries are not to transact their respective business except under and in accordance with the conditions of the certificate of registration obtained from the Respondent in accordance with the regulations made under the Act, that the Regulations titled “Securities and Exchange Board of India (Depositories and Participants)
