The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the filing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in cases involving a violation of the principle of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed arising out of the order dated 10.2.2020 which was delivered to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 7.8.2020 received on 14.8.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India constituted under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short "Act of 1949"). By the aforesaid order the Disciplinary Committee has observed that the petitioner is guilty of professional gross negligence and held him guilty for expressing opinion on financial status of company in which he was having substantial interest and it has been observed that the disciplinary committee is of the opinion that petitioner is guilty of professional misconduct as defined under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the petitioner was held guilty under clause (2) of Part IV of 1st Schedule and clause (4) and (7) of Part 1 of 2nd Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents with respect to maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwalior on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is alleged that the order impugned is being passed at New Delhi. The entire proceedings have taken place in the New Delhi, therefore, the petition should have been preferred at High Court Judicature at New Delhi. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable owing to want of jurisdiction. The second objection is with respect to maintainability of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is argued that the petitioner is having an alternative, efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the order impugned under section 22G of the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949, which is headed by a Retired Judge of the High Court. Without availing the alternative, efficacious remedy available to him the petition has directly before this Court is not maintainable. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Lts. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 658 and also in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85.

3. Prior to going into merit of the case, this Court deems it proper to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in the petition. So far as objection with respect to the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner is the resident of Gwalior having its firm registered at Gwalior. He is doing his profession as Chartered Accountant at Gwalior in the name of M/s. Ramakant Gupta and Co. having registered office at 8, Near Chandra Nagar, Behind GDA, Kherapati Road, Gwalior (M.P.). The complainant is also a resident of Gwalior. Therefore, the cause of action to take cognizance against the petitioner arose at Gwalior. Because of action has arisen at Gwalior, wherein the complaint was made against the petitioner from Gwalior itself. Merely the fact that disciplinary committee constituted under section 21B of Act of 1949 its functioning at New Delhi does not debar the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of an order passed by the Committee placed at Gwalior. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, has held as under:

"5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause--notwithstanding anything in Article 32--and provides that every High Court shall have power "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, "within those territories" directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part,