1. Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freely practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business subject to any Saw providing for reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India issued a notification specifying that a Chartered Accountant shall not accept more than the specified number of tax audit assignments referred to under S.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Does it amount to an unreasonable restriction?

2. Ext. P1 notification issued by the first respondent is under challenge. By the said notification the first respondent introduced certain restrictions restricting the number of tax audit assignments under S. ,44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 30 in a financial year in the case of an individual Chartered Accountant irrespective of the fact that he is having a proprietory concern or a firm. Under S.44AB of the Income Tax Act every person carrying on business, if his total sales turnover or gross receipts in business exceeds Rs. 40 lakhs in a year and every person carrying on the profession having gross receipts exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs in a year is liable to have the accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant. The first respondent issued Ext. P1 notification under Part II of the II Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein it is provided that a member of the Institute whether in practice or not shall be deemed to be guilty of professional misconduct, if he accepts more than the specified number of tax audit assignments under S.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notification came into force on 1.4.1989 and 30 was fixed as the specified number.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext. P1 is an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on a profession and the same is also violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. According to the first respondent, there is no violation of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and Ext. P1 contains only a reasonable restriction permitted under Art.19 of the Constitution of India, in public interest.

4. Heard Sri. K.P. Balasubramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.M. Devan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

5. In order to properly understand the background of the impugned notification and the competence of the first respondent to issue such a notification, it is necessary to have an overview of the Scheme of the Act. It is seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act that the second respondent sought to authorise the incorporation by Statute "an autonomous professional body." Preamble of the Act says that it is an'Act to make provision for the regulation of the profession of Chartered Accountants.' Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is incorporated as per S3. S.9 deals with the constitution of the Council of the Institute designated and designated "for the management of the affairs of the Institute and for discharging the functions assigned to it under this Act." S.15 stipulates that "the duty of carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be vested in the Council" S.30 deals with the power of the Council to make regulations "for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Act." S.30(2) provides for the scope and extent of the power. To the extent it is relevant, the same reads as follows:?

"30(2). In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following rnatters:?

(k) the regulation and maintenance of the status and standard of professional qualifications of members of the Institute." (Emphasis supplied)

Second Schedule to Part II deals with professional misconduct in relation to members of the Institute generally requiri