THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI DATED: 10-02-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 1985 OF 2010 Between: Suneel Kumar Appaji ..... PETITIONER AND The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, rep., by its Secretary, ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 and eight others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 1985 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J) The petitioner, a Fellow Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the 1st respondent herein, filed this writ petition for issuance of a mandamus declaring that respondent Nos.3 to 9 who have been members of Council for three consecutive terms i.e., the 18th Council, 19th Council and 20th Council are ineligible to hold the office of the 21st Council as per the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act’) in general and Section 10 in particular; to further declare that the results of the elections held during December 2009 to the 21st Council as not sustainable being violative of Section 10 of the Act and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct fresh elections to the 21st Council. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for an interim direction to suspend the operation of the declaration of the results of election to the Council issued vide notification No.54-E1 (1)/19/2010 of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent with a further direction to refrain respondent Nos.3 to 9 from participating in all proceedings of the Council of the 1st respondent to be held from 12-02-2010. Earlier to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21668 of 2009 for issuance of a mandamus declaring the explanation at (iv) to clause (d) of Rule 7 of the Chartered Accountants (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006 (for short, ‘the Rules’) as being ultra vires the Act as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for suspension of explanation at (iv) to clause (d) of Rule 7 of the Rules with a further direction to the Returning Officer to scrutinise the nominations strictly in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. This Court while admitting the said writ petition on 12-10-2009 dismissed the petition filed for interim order. In the elections held as per the impugned notification, respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were elected to the 21st Council. The petitioner seeks to restrain them from functioning as office holders of the 21st Council as they are disqualified to contest the election as such in view of Section 10 of the Act and to direct the 1st respondent to conduct fresh elections. In Ponnu Swami vs. Returning Officer[1], it was categorically held by the Supreme Court that any matter which has the effect of vitiating the elections should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before the special Tribunal and should not be brought up at intermediate stage before any Court or if the elections are so held, the same should be challenged before the appropriate forum constituted for the said purpose. In S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan and Ors[2], it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after the commencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election held for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that there was an error in the matter of allotment of symbols to the candidates contesting at such election. The parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of the election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy. In the present case, Section 10A of the Act provides for settlement of disputes regarding elections. According to the said Section, in case of any dispute regarding any election under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 9, the aggrieved person may make an application within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of election to the Secretary of the Institute, who shall forward the same to the Central Government and on such receipt of the application under Section 10A, the Central Government shall by notification, establish a Tribunal consisting of a Presiding Officer and two other Members to decide such dispute and decision of such Tribunal shall be final as per Section 10B of the Act. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has to make an application to the Secretary of the 1st respondent and since effective alternative remedy is available to him, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOUSHAD ALI, J 10-02-2010 ks [1] AIR 1952 SC 69 [2] AIR 1988 SC 616