The court emphasized that the exercise of power by the Council to specify certain activities as misconduct must not conflict with the provisions of the Act and the regulations, and that the prohibition of canvassing votes did not unreasonably restrict the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

Sadasivayya, J.—The Petitioner 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 respondent is the Council of the said Institute. The respondent is the Council of the said Institute. The Institute is a creature of The Chartered Accountants Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). From what has been stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, it would appear that the election to the Central Council and the Regular Councils is due to take place in the month of August 1964 and that the Petitioner is a prospective candidate for the Central Council. Exhibit 1 is an announcement dated 22nd February 1964, issued by the President of the Institute. It pertains to the forthcoming elections to the Central and Regional Councils. The relevant portion of that announcement is as follows:

"IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

* * * * * *

Members' attention is invited to Regulation 54 A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations (Copy enclosed), which provides for disciplinary action against members under certain circumstances in connection with the conduct of elections.

The Council feels that, in addition to the requirements under this Regulation, the candidates should refrain from all such practices as undermine the honour and dignity of the profession. The Council, therefore, solicits the support of members to help in conducting the elections in a spirit of dignity and decorum.

It is felt that the candidates could best bring to the attention of the voters their qualification by taking active interest in professional activities like contributions through the Journal of the Institute, participation in seminars, meetings and discussions and through assistance in other activities of the Institute like promotion of research, rather than through direct or indirect canvassing.

It has, therefore, been decided that any attempt at canvassing through issue of manifestoes circulars, etc., should be considered as "misconduct" under the Chartered Accountants Act, rendering the members concerned liable for disciplinary action. The Council had issued a notification to that effect being Notification No. 1-CA(34)/64 dated 22nd February 1964 (Copy enclosed)

The Council reiterates its earnest appeal to every member of the Institute to co-operate in implementing this decision of the Council and to ensure that the forthcoming and future elections to the Central and Regional Councils are conducted in a manner worthy of a learned profession, with all decisions and highest ethical standards.

Yours Sincerely,

R.C. COOPER; 

President."    

The notification dated 22-2-1964 referred to in the above announcement and which the Council has issued is as follows :

"NOTIFICATION

(Chartered Accountants)

No. 1-CA (34)/64. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of part II of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India specifies that a member of the Institute shall be deemed to be guilty of misconduct, if, in connection with election to the Central and/or Regional Councils of the Institute, he is 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 voters or in any other manner; and

3. Organising parties to entertain voters.

C. BALAKRISHNAN

Secretary"

The Petitioner has, on various grounds, contended that the said notification is without the authority of law and has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the Council has taken the stand that it was within its competence to issue this notification and that the same is valid in law.

Although the whole of the notification, above referred to, has been attacked in the petitioner's affidavit as being i