Dmt 1 wpl2333-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2333 OF 2011 M/s. Sony Mony Electronics Ltd., .. Petitioners. versus The CIT-VIII & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Ms. Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Petitioners. Mr. Vimal Gupta for Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 21 October 2011. P.C. : By an order dated 5 June 2008 passed under Section 142 (2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Petitioners were directed to pay the fees of the Special Auditor in the Dmt 2 wpl2333-11 amount of Rs. 8,52,532/-. The Petitioners have a grievance in regard to the quantum of fees charged since, according to them, the Chartered Accountant who was appointed as a Special Auditor subsequent to the earlier appointment had charged a lesser amount for the work which was actually completed. According to the Petitioners, the earlier Auditor could not have charged a higher amount for work which was incomplete. The Petitioners earlier instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution Writ Petition No. 170 of 2009 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6 April 2009. While recording the statement of the Petitioner made through Counsel that the fees of the Special Auditor would be paid, the Division Bench observed that whether the Chartered Accountant had charged fees in terms of the letter dated 31 May 2007 was a question of fact. The Petitioners were left open to pursue the remedy which was available in law if they were aggrieved. The Petitioners thereafter moved the Institute of Chartered Accountants which rejected by a communication dated 4 August 2011 their complaint holding that there was no prima Dmt 3 wpl2333-11 facie case and the complaint was closed. The Petitioners have now sought to challenge once again the order dated 5 June 2008 under Section 142 (2D). This order was the subject matter of the earlier proceedings before the Court. A challenge to the order is clearly barred in a second petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the previous order of the Division Bench dated 6 April 2009. 2. The Petition is dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)