PUTTUSWAMY, J.

1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are either Tax advocates or IT practitioners (IT Ps) or assessees under the IT Act, 1961 (as the case may be) have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the Act as introduced by Finance Act, 1984. On the very questions raised in these petitions, there is no authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court or this Court. The questions raised in these cases will affect a large number of Tax Advocates, IT practitioners and assesees in the country itself. IN these circumstances, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to be heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court. IN exercise of powers conferred under S. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, I refer these cases to a Division Bench for disposal.

ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH PUTTASWAMY, J. : On a reference made by one of us, (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before us for disposal.

2. As the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the IT Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), we propose to dispose of these petitions by this order.

1. There are two groups of petitioners. The first group who are the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1585 to 1603 and 3775 to 3788 of 1985 are professionals who are authorised by law and S. 288 of the Act in particular to appear, act and plead for the assessees before all the authorities under the Act. We will hereafter refer to them as ITPs. 3.2. The ITPs consists of Advocates who are on the rolls of one or the other Bar Council in the country, whose enrolment, conduct and other related matters are regulated by the Advocate's Act of 1961 (Central Act No. 25 of 1961). A number of Advocates, some of whom are petitioners before us, besides possessing a qualification in law which is necessary to enrol them as Advocates, possess qualifications in commerce like a Degree of Bachelor in Commerce or a Master's Degree in Commerce or a Diploma in Commerce. With this added qualification, that stands them in goodstead, these Advocates prepare the returns of their clients--tax payers, file them and then represent them before the original, appellate and revisional authorities under the Act. Some of the Advocates though they do not possess qualifications of Degree or Diploma in Commerce, have gained necessary experience in the preparation and filing of returns before the authorities. 3.3. Besides the Advocates there are others with qualifications such as a Degree or Diploma in Commerce who have chosen practice exclusively before the authorities under the Act. A large number of them are registered or recognised ITPs under Part-XI of the IT Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') framed under the Act by one or the other CIT, who is empowered to register them as ITPs under the Rules. A few of them do not have any Degree or Diploma in Commerce but are authorised ITPs. 3.4. The second group of petitioners before us, are tax payers or assessees under the Act and some of them are the clients of one or the other ITPs who are the first group of petitioners.

3. The Finance Act of 1984 (Central Act No. 11F of 1984) has inter alia, incorporated S. 44AB of the Act and the same has come into force from 1st April, 1985. Sec. 44AB provides for compulsory or statutory audit of accounts of certain class of persons carrying on business or profession by Chartered Accountants (CAs) who are on the Register of Members maintained by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Institute) established and functioning from 1st July, 1949 under the Chartered Accountants Act of 1949 (Central Act No. 38 of 1949) ('CA Act'). As the said exclusive right or privilege conferred on CAs has affected their interests, the petitioners have challenged the said provisions under art. 226 of the Constitution, as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

4. 1. The ITPs with whom w