IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the mere pendency of criminal charges does not disqualify a professional from their role, and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld in administrative decisions affecting professional integrity.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The vakalatnama of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ("IBBI") the 2nd Respondent is filed. There is an Affidavit in Reply. It takes the limited point that there is an appellate remedy that is available to the Petitioner.

2. That may be so, but the existence of the appellate remedy is not always, or in every situation, an absolute bar to the exercise of equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is inter alia evident from a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8969/2022 decided on 5/1/2023.

In particular, paragraph 27 makes this position clear. There are well known exceptions to the rule that an alternate remedy must first be exhausted. An express finding is that the existence of an alternate remedy does not per se divest a High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case although ordinarily a writ Court would not entertain a writ petition where there exists an efficacious alternate remedy. While the rule of exhaustion of a statutory alternate remedy is a rule of policy and convenience, it is also one of discretion.

3. One of the principles that attaches to evaluating any administrative or executive action in judicial review is whether the standard applied is reasonable and proportionate. Other well settled tenets of natural justice are of course that an opportunity of being heard must be given and that a reasoned order must be passed. Equally, no authority can exercise jurisdiction that is not vested in it. A hearing is not to be an empty formality. It must be an effective hearing and must result in a reasoned order that reflects a proper application of mind. This speaks to the decision-making process, not the resultant decision itself. Where these elements are found even prima facie to be lacking, a writ Court is not denuded of its powers, nor can it be told that its extraordinary jurisdiction is completely fettered.

4. Where the petitioner is able to prima facie dispute the existence of an effective alternate appellate remedy, that is to say, where the petitioner points out that if the alternate appellate remedy invoked by the respondent is likely to result in a serious question of jurisdiction or maintainability of the appeal, a writ court can certainly exercise its discretionary and equitable powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The facts of this case persuade us that even though the Respondent may claim there is an appellate remedy, prima facie not only is the action of the 2nd Respondent so egregious and so shocks the conscience of the Court in the manner in which the impugned order was made that we believe we must step in immediately, but there is also a very serious issue about the existence of an appellate remedy at all.

6. The Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant. He is highly qualified with a Doctorate, an LLB, and a BBM. He is government registered valuer under Sec. 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act 1957 for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act, Income Tax Act and Gift Tax Act specifically for stocks, shares, debentures, securities, etc. The Petitioner and other valuers incorporated a company known as Yardi Prabhu Consultants and Valuers Pvt Ltd. The Petitioner is one its directors.

7. One of the clients of this firm Yardi Prabhu Consultants was the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Ltd ("PMC").

8. In 2016, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ("IBC") came into force and with it, under Sec. 188, the 2nd Respondent Board, the IBBI, came to be established. In 2017, the Union of India passed the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules 2017 ("the RV Rules"; "the Rules"). These came into effect on 18/10/2017.

9. There was then in 2017 a delegation of the powers by the Union of India to the IBBI.

10. In April 2019, the Petitioner sought enrolment as a valuer with the IBBI in accordance with the RV Rul