S/L 12 16.07.2026 Court. No. 25 Suvayan WPA 11366 of 2026 Rahul Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Sourodip Banerjee Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee Mr. Indradeb Saha …for the petitioner. Mr. Rajib Ray …for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order of the disciplinary committee dated February 5, 2026 wherein the committee ordered that the petitioner be reprimanded along with the fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid within 60 days of receipt of this order. The committee also ordered that the name of the petitioner be removed from the Register of Members for a period of six months. The petitioner has also handed over the communication dated May 21, 2026 wherein in pursuance of the decision of the disciplinary committee dated February 5, 2026 a notification has been published for removal of the name of the petitioner from the Register of Members for a period of six months with effect from May 29, 2026. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ application. He submits that he has participated in the disciplinary proceeding and after hearing the parties, the disciplinary committee has passed the impugned order and notification has also 2 been issued. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Section 22 (g) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 wherein the appeal provision is provided. He submits that the petitioner instead of filing an appeal has filed the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition can be maintained as the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. 4. The Disciplinary committee time and again issued notices to the petitioner for hearing but the petitioner one or the other reasons prays for adjournment. The Disciplinary committee by a communication dated December 24, 2025 communicated the findings of the committee to the petitioner for submitting his written representation within 14 days from receipt of the findings but the petitioner failed to submit any representation. 5. Considering the above, this Court finds that the disciplinary committee has provided proper opportunity of hearing and thus the ground raised by the petitioner that the opportunity was not given to the petitioner before passing the order is not sustainable and thus the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. 8. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 3 9. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)