1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2434 OF 2008 Dist.: MUMBAI Gangaram Chandwani ...Petitioner Versus Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ... Respondents The petitioner, party-in-person, present Ms. Alpana Ghone i/by M/s. Kanga &Co. for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 9, 2008 P. C.:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practising Chartered Accountant, challenging the increase in Annual Membership Fee and Certificate of Practice Fee for the year 2008. 2. He submits that for 2007, the total fee that had to be paid was Rs.1,700/-, but now, there has been a 100% increase, and annual fee required to be payable with effect from 1st April, 2008 was Rs.3,400/-. He has not been able to show us any provision in the Chartered 2 Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter “the Act”, for short) or any other law applicable to the facts of the case, that any restrictions are placed on the respondents to make the impugned increase in the fee. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, has drawn our attention to Sections 5 and 15 of the Act. In terms of clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Council of the Institute can levy and collect fee from members, examinees and other persons; and in terms of Section 5(3), Chartered Accountants can be made to pay the fee for registration, which should not exceed five thousand rupees, with approval of the Central Government, and in any case, the fee cannot be levied exceeding ten thousand rupees. Since the increase in the fee is within the limits of Section 5(3) and proviso thereto, we do not feel that this Court has any reason to intervene in the matter. 4. However, the petitioner, in person, submits that the five thousand rupees is the outer limit, and this limit could be attained by making progressive increases, and the fee could not be increased 100% at one time. We do not agree with such a submission. Since the 3 respondents have the power to levy the fee, and they have increased the fee, and they have increased it within the limits prescribed by statute, no intervention is called for. The Writ Petition is misconceived and dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.S. SHINDE, J.