904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC communications in the plaint. Even today, despite the amendment, there is no explanation as to why these two persons chose not to respond to Ms. Dalal. What is stated in paragraph 18A of the plaint cannot be new. It was then known to the NSE. If it is indeed a complete answer, it ought to have been provided. It was not; and we are left to speculate as to why the NSE did not think it necessary to provide the response when it was sought. 17. If the answer to this is that the NSE is not bound to respond to any and every person who writes to it, then that is not one that I am prepared to accept in this particular case. The reason suggests itself. It certainly stares one in the face when one considers the Affidavit in Reply and Ms. Dalal’s undoubted and well documented track record in financial matters. She is a much-decorated and highly regarded journalist in financial sectors with nearly three decades of experience in the field. Her work and she have received recognition and are renowned. She is not, despite the quite pettyminded and churlish statements in the Affidavit in Rejoinder, somebody who can be said to be even remotely irresponsible, scaremongering, populist or given to hyperbole. To the contrary. It is to her credit that in April 1992, 23 years ago this year, it was she who was primarily responsible for exposing what came to be known as the Harshad Mehta scam, one that can, I think, safely be said to have directly led to the introduction of a series of regulatory measures and protective standards that govern, interestingly enough, the NSE itself. She has also been a columnist of various newspapers and the business editor of leading financial newspapers. She is known to have worked closely with at least one former chairman of SEBI. All of this is in the public domain. It acquires 16 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::