S.K. SANYAL Vs. MIRZA M. HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter the Institute of Chartered Accountants have asked for further directions in respect of an order which we made on the 5th Feb., 1953. By that order we referred hack to the Institute, under section 21 (3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, a reference made by them regarding a complaint against the respondent, Mirza M. Hussain. Our direction was that the Institute should hold a further enquiry as to three matters and forward their findings to us by the 30th November. 1953.

(2.) The Institute have reported that since the receipt of our order they held two meetings of the Council at which the order was considered and the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee for the purpose of the further enquiry directed by us. The Disciplinary Committee is said to have held a meeting on the 30th November. 1953, at which the respondent is alleged to have not been present. It is stated further that the respondent has, in the meantime, ceased to be a member of the Institute by reason of his failure to pay the membership fee and the cessation of his membership took effect on and from the 1st April, 1953. In those circumstances, the Institute have asked for directions as to whether the Disciplinary Committee will now have any jurisdiction to continue the enquiry against the respondent who is no longer a member and they have prayed that if our answer be in the affirmative, the time for submitting the fresh report may be extended up to the 30th Sept., 1954.

(3.) The only difficulty felt by the Institute appears to be that the respondent has ceased to be a member. I may point out at once that if the removal of the respondent's name from the list of members has in fact created a difficulty, such difficulty has been of the Institute's own making. It does not appear either from the Act or from the Rules made thereunder that upon the failure of a member to pay his annual subscription the removal of his name from the list of members shall be automatic. On the other hand, section 20 of the Act distinctly provides that the Council of the Institute may remove from the Register the name of any member of the Institute, who has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him. It is thus clear that in order to bring about the removal of a member's name from the list of members, mere non-payment of the membership subscription by him is not sufficient, but an order by the Council is further required. We are unable to understand why the Council of the Institute, knowing that the present proceeding against the respondent was pending, at all exercised their discretion under section 20(b) of the Act and removed the name of the respondent from the Register, thus making the respondent a non-member and bring into existence the difficulty to which the Institute complain. We understand that the removal took place sometime in July or Aug., 1953. The only excuse I can think of is that the implications of the removal of the respondent's name from the list of members, while the present enquiry was pending, were not realised or properly appreciated.