1 2025:CGHC:7249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1087 of 2024 • Sunil Johri S/o Ramesh Sahai Johri Aged About 59 Years Having His Address At 110 Wallfort Zone, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Applicant Versus 1. Disciplinary Directorate The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India 2nd And 3rd Floor, (Regulatory Block), ICAI Bhawan, 52, 53, And 54, Maharshi Valmiki Marg, Near Karkarduma Court Complex, Vishwas Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 2. Board Of Discipline The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India, 2nd 3rd Floor (Regulatory Block), ICAI Bhawan, 52, 53 And 54, Maharshi Valmiki Marg, Near Karkarduma Court Complex, Vishwas Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 3. Disciplinary Committee The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India, 2nd 3rd Floor (Regulatory Block), ICAI Bhawan, 52, 53 And 54, Maharshi Valmiki Marg, Near Karkarduma Court Complex, Vishwas Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Prakul Khurana, Advocate For Non-Applicants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. This is an application for restoration of MCC No. 988 of 2024 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 07.11.2024. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. Mr. Prakul Khurana, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that though the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee was challenged but was not quashed in the Writ Petition. He would further contend that the applicant approached the authority pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition but the Disciplinary Authority declined to consider the application moved by the applicant. He would further submit that earlier MCC No. 988 of 2024 was filed for modification of the order passed in the writ petition to the extent that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority may be quashed but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, the instant application has been filed for restoration of MCC No. 988 of 2024. 3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicants would submit that the proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee have already been concluded. He would further submit that there was a direction in the writ petition (WPC No. 2009/2024) in favour of the applicant that he shall not be compelled to produce certain documents. He would further submit that as no proceeding is pending before the authority concerned, this application (MCC) has become infructuous. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The final order passed in WPC No. 2009/2024 would show that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was not pressed at the time of arguments. This Court taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the Counsel passed the order therefore the contention made by Mr. Khurana in this regard cannot be accepted. Further, the proceeding pending before the Disciplinary Committee has already been concluded therefore no order can be passed in favor of the 3 applicant. The earlier MCC was dismissed for want of prosecution and a repeat application has been moved for restoration of earlier MCC No. 988 of 2024. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made for interference. 6. Consequently, this MCC fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti