- (1.) These are cross-appeals - the appeal has been filed by H. A. K. Rao, a Chartered Accountant, and the cross-appeal has been filed by the respondent therein - against the judgment and order of the Mysore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 473 of 1964 filed by the former challenging the validity of the notification issued by the latter regulating the conduct of elections to the Central Council and the Regional Councils of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
(2.) The facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated. H. A. K. Rao, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1965, is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, hereinafter referred to as the "Institute". The election to the Central Council and the Regional Councils of the Institute was to take place in the month of August 1964. On February 22, 1964, the President of the Institute issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (ii) of Part II of the Second Schedule to The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (38 of 1949), hereinafter called the Act, notifying that a member of the Institute shall be deemed to be guilty of misconduct, if, in connection with election to the Councils of the Institute, he was found to have taken part, directly or indirectly, either himself or through any other person, in any of the following activities :- (1) issuing manifestoes or circulars; (2) canvassing votes by visiting places of business or residence of the voters or in any other manner ; and (3) organising parties to entertain voters. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1965 was a prospective candidate for the Central Council of the Institute. He filed the aforesaid writ petition to quash the said notification on various grounds which we will consider in the course of the judgment. The High Court held that the impugned notification in so far as it directed that issuing of manifestoes or circulars was misconduct was illegal and that that part of the notification in so far as it directed canvassing of votes was miscondut was valid. Both the parties are challenging the said order in so far as it is against each of them.
(3.) Mr. K. Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1965, attacked the validity of the notification on three grounds, namely, (1) it was beyond the competence of the Central Council, (2) it purported to amend the Regulations (3) it was in conflict with the Regulations and (4) it was in violation of Cls. (1) (a) and (1) (g) of Art. 19 of the Constitution.;