IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that when an alternative statutory remedy exists, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless exceptional circumstances are present.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri K. Rajendran appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3, and learned Counsel Sri Y.Suryanarayana, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as under:

“...to issue a writ of Mandamus by declaring the Decision/Order dated 20th November 2014 together with the decision dated 24th September 2014 in ICSI/DC:207/2013 passed by the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, perverse, unjust, unreasonable without any authority of law without following the due process of law in gross violation of the prescribed Rules and Procedures, in gross violation of principles of natural justice gross abuse of power and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(g) of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to all canons of equity justice and fair play...”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A) The interim orders of this Court dated 24.02.2015 in W.P.No.3572 of 2015 are extracted hereunder:

In view of averments of the petitioner in paras 13 and 14 of the affidavit that the appellate remedy is not available to him, at present, issue notice to R2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on R2 and file proof of service.

Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of R3 and he is stated to have filed counter affidavit.

List this writ petition on 09-03-2015 in ‘ML’.

Pending further orders, status-quo existing as on today, with regard to impugned proceedings, shall be maintained”.

B. The said orders dated 24.02.2015 had been modified vide orders of the Court dated 27.03.2015 passed in WPMP No.7749 of 2015 in W.P.No.3572 of 2015 observing as under :

The present application is filed seeking modification of the interim order dated 24.2.2015. The petitioner states that though this Court directed status quo to be maintained as on the date of the said order, the second respondent appears to have given effect to the impugned order from 25.2.2015, whereas the learned counsel for the third respondent states that it has been given effect from 13.2.2015. Thus even if we take the date of effectiveness of the impugned order as 13.2.2015 as the date from which the punishment was enforced against the petitioner as per the impugned order, and by today the petitioner has already served 42 days of punishment.

In view of the fact that the writ petition questioning the impugned order is pending and it would be rendered infructuous if the impugned order is not stayed, therefore, I deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 24.2.2015 to the effect that the impugned order dated 12.1.2015 passed by the second respondent shall remain stayed so far as the balance period of 60 days is concerned. However, the said interim order shall be subject to result of the writ petition and in the event of the petitioner failing in the writ petition, he will have to serve the remainder of the punishment also. This application is accordingly ordered.

C. Order dated 29.02.2016 of the Appellate Authority constituted under ICSI Act, 1980 in Appeal No.01/ICSI/2015 is extracted hereunder :

“Two Members of the Appellate Authority are reported to be not available for today's hearing. One Member has already recused himself from hearing this Appeal.

The Appellant has sent a Petition for withdrawal of this Appeal on the ground that during the period, when this Appellate Authority was not functioning, he had filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and he has already got an interim relief in that Writ Petition (being WP No. 3572 of 2015) is now pending for final hearing. He has stated that during the pendency of the Petition before Hon'ble High Court, it will not be appropriate for him to prosecute this Appeal and therefore, the same may be dismissed as withd