RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA Vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners in these three writ petitions have raised a common question of law regarding interpretation of a provision of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Regulation 12(4), which is : "(4) Every complaint, other than a complaint made by or on behalf of the Central or any State Government, shall be accompanied by a deposit of one hundred rupees which will he forfeited if the Council, after considering the complaint, comes to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out and moreover that the complaint is either a frivolous one or is made with mala fide intention."

(2.) Three complaints were made against the petitioners under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. On August 16, 2005 they were registered by the Institute, It then took steps to serve copies thereof in terms of provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Regulation 12(6). The petitioners received the copies on August 27, 2005. They were given opportunity of filing written statement. By letters dated September 19, 2005 they prayed for three months to file written statement. By letters dated September 29, 2005 the institute extended time to file written statement by forty-five days. On November 19, 2005 they submitted three applications seeking dismissal of the complaints. They contended that in view of provisions in Regulation 12(4) the Council of the Institute was under the obligation to consider the complaints for ascertaining whether they made out any prima facie case.

(3.) By letters dated December 9, 2005 the Institute informed the petitioners that there was no scope to dismiss the complaints at that stage. They were further informed that they were free to file their written statements. Further notices dated December 27, 2005 were given to them reminding them of their right to file written statement. By letters dated December 28, 2005 they once again pointed out to the Institute that they wanted the complaints to be considered by the Council in terms of provisions in Regulation 12(4). By letters dated January 3, 2006 and January 25, 2006 they were given further opportunities to file their written statements. Feeling aggrieved they took out these writ petitions dated February 8, 2006.