THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22977 of 1999 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the action of respondents 1 and 2 in treating the sale of shares of the 6th respondent-company made by the petitioner through certificate Nos.71701-71720 as bad delivery; is assailed as illegal and unconstitutional and consequential direction to respondent No.6 to effect the transfer of the shares is prayed for. The petitioner is a Stock Broker, registered with the 1st respondent. The 8th respondent herein held five lakhs shares in the 6th respondent- company in his individual capacity. He is said to have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the 7th respondent, by name K.Sahadev Reddy. The latter, in turn, is said to have sold the shares to various purchasers, through the petitioner. The 8th respondent is said to have filed a complaint with the police alleging that the 7th respondent has misused the GPA executed in his favour. An FIR was registered and the same was taken to the notice of the 1st respondent. Acting on the same, the 1st respondent treated the sale of shares through the petitioner as bad delivery and consequential action ensued. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has advanced extensive arguments, touching on the facts and law. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in relation to some of the shares held by the 8th respondent herein, and sold by the 7th respondent through another stock broker by name Merfin (India) Limited, Hyderabad, W.P.No.22502 of 1999 was filed and the same was allowed on 14.12.2004. A copy of the same is placed before this Court. There is no representation for the respondents. A perusal of the judgment in W.P.No.22502 of 1999 discloses that the facts of the present case are identical with those of that case. After reference to the relevant provisions of law, this Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the action of the 1st respondent in treating the sale of shares sold by the 7th respondent as bad delivery cannot be sustained in law and the writ petition was allowed. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24.06.2010. GJ