Madras High Court in a recent judgment has turned down and dismissed Writ Peitition designed as Public Interest Litigations seeking to quash the Common Proficiency Test (CPT) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).

Case Details:
W.P. Nos.1363 to 1367 of 2012 and 33784 of 2013
Coram: Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice and Justice T. S. Sivagnanam
Date of Order: 04-06-2015

Parties:
A.IRUDAYAM (Appellant)
vs
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Respondent No. 1)
Institute of Chartered Accountants (Respondent No. 2)
Secretary, ICAI (Respondent No. 3)
Ministry of Law (Respondent No. 4)
Ministry of Human Resource and Development (Respondent No. 5)

Facts of the Case:
Total six Writ Petitions designed as Public Interest Litigations had been filed filed Mr. A. Irudayam who had worked at The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as an Assistant Secretary in the Head Office at New Delhi. The petitioner also functioned as the Head of the Southern Region of ICAI from June 2002 to August 2007.

the petitioner, he had filed these Writ Petitions to seek justice for the student community and had alleged that their fundamental rights were violated due to arbitrary exercise of power and actions, which are ultra vires the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act.

In nut shell, the petitioner in all these six Writ Petitions contended that the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, as amended by Amendment Act 2006, (Act) specify the object of the Act, namely, to make provision for the regulation of the profession of Chartered Accountants and for which purpose to establish an Institute of Chartered Accountants and the legislation does not intend to provide any theoretical education to the students of Chartered Accountancy while enacting the Act. By referring to Section 15(2) of the Act, it was stated that the functions of the Council is to approve academic courses, examination of candidates for enrolment, engagement and training of articled assistants, prescribing qualification for entry into Register and recognition of foreign qualification and the functions under the Act does not provide for imparting theoretical education other than practical training component to articled assistants. Further, by referring to Section 15A of the Act, it is submitted that the provision was introduced to the effect that any University establish by law or any body affiliated to the Institute may impart education on the subjects covered by the academic courses of the Institute and therefore, the second respondent are only competent to impart education on subjects covered by academic courses coming under Section 15(2)(a) of the Amended Act, 2006, and the respondents 1 to 3 have miserably failed in their statutory duty of providing theoretical education envisaged under Section 15A to the students of Chartered Accountant courses.

It was also submitted that there is no provision in the Act for registration of students for courses, levy and collection of fee for the students and therefore, all the activities of the second respondent are ultra vires. Also that the Common Proficiency Test (CPT) was launched with effect from 13.09.2006, which has been continuing and fee is being collected without any jurisdiction or power and by that means several crores of money has been collected and the CPT fee is disproportionately high, when compared to the other Common Entrance Test fees collected by the various other institutions.

In effect, petitioner contended that the approval granted to the registration to CPT should be quashed.

Excerpts from the Judgment:

The CPT against which the petitioner raises an ''hue and cry'', was introduced during September 2006, (this is admitted by the petitioner). During the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the position as the head of the Southern Region of the second respondent Institution. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner accepted the regulations as such, functioned under the second respondent in various capacities including the matters concerning examinations.

Curiously enough after he came out of the Institute he has resorted to filing these Writ Petitions designed as “Public Interest Litigations”. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that these Writ petitions are being filed to seek justice for the Chartered Accountancy students. The Common Proficiency Test (CPT) has been in vogue since 2006 and there appears to have been no complaint from any students till date nor any such complaint has been placed before us. It is stated by the second respondent that as on date approximately 7,94,132 students have been registered on its rolls and they are in different stages of the Chartered Accountancy curriculum. Therefore, we are of the firm view that these Writ Petitions at the instance of the present petitioner cannot be treated as “Public Interest Litigations”. Furthermore, the oral education imparted by the Institute is neither compulsory nor mandatory, but optional.

The petitioner while in office as head of the Southern Region of the second respondent functioned with the system and took decisions which according to him now are now faulty. We are not convinced to entertain these Writ Petitions as “Public Interest Litigations” at the instance of the Writ Petitioner.

For all the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions designed as “Public Interest Litigations” at the instance of the petitioner and the same are dismissed. However, we leave it open that as and when any genuine grievance raised by an aggrieved person, the same could be examined in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>