Updated on: Friday, April 15, 2011
Cost and works accountancy students from Pimpri, Chinchwad and Akurdi will no longer have to travel to the city to fulfil their academic course activity.
An independent chapter of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI), a statutory body under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for regulating cost and management accountancy profession and education in the country, is set to go functional in Akurdi by the end of April.
A notification facilitating the new chapter in Akurdi was issued on April 4 by ICWAI president Brij Mohan Sharma after the Bombay high court dismissed, on April 1, a writ petition by the Pune Chapter of Cost Accountants that challenged ICWAI’s decision to set up a separate facility for Pimpri, Chinchwad and Akurdi.
It may be noted that ICWAI regional councils and chapters, in particular, are the points of direct interface for students vis-à-vis enrolment to the professional course, coaching and training, conduct of exams and maintenance of standards.
In a 14-page judgment, the high court division bench of justices P B Majmudar and A A Sayyad has described the Pune chapter’s petition as “thoroughly misconceived, especially when the petitioner wants to stall any other chapter in the area only with a view to see that it can be prospered in the matter of income by enrolling more students.” The court also described the petition as “without substance”.
L D Pawar, secretary of the newly-notified Akurdi chapter, told TOI on Tuesday, “We have been pursuing since 2009 the issue of a separate chapter, considering the growth of industrial and commercial activity in Pimpri, Chinchwad and adjoining areas.”
“Students from these areas found it inconvenient to travel to the Pune chapter office, which is located at Parvati,” he said. “The new office in Akurdi will be inaugurated by the end of this month and we will start with admissions from June onwards.”
When contacted, Pune chapter president Pramod Dube said, “Our executive committee will take a call on whether to appeal against the high court judgment. I have nothing else to say for now. The judgment is self-explanatory.” The Pune chapter had moved the high court on the grounds that the ICWAI decision, taken on February 25, was in contravention of provisions under the Cost Accountants’ Chapters (amendment) Bylaws, 2010, which restrict setting up of a new chapter within a 20 km radius of the existing chapter.
It was argued that a new chapter can be established only at the recommendation of the concerned regional council, i.e. the Western India Regional Council (WIRC), which had not recommended such a move. The new chapter would result in an unfair competition over enrolment of students and would cause huge loss of revenue to the existing chapter. The petition also sought the court’s directive to strike down a sub-clause of the bylaws that empowers the ICWAI central council for relaxation of the 20 km radius norm on a case-to-case basis. “The sub-clause is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the petition stated.
The ICWAI counsel countered this by stating that as a chapter of the parent body, the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter. He pointed out that four of the six WIRC members had individually written to the ICWAI favouring the new chapter. The decision for new chapter was based on material and evidence on record, the counsel said. “Of the ICWAI’s existing 93 chapters, there are many examples of setting up of a new chapter within 20 km radius of an existing one,” the counsel said.
In its judgment, the bench has observed that the mere prospect of loss of revenue cannot be grounds for setting aside the decision taken by an expert body (ICWAI). It acknowledged the letters by four WIRC members to the ICWAI, as a majority in favour of the new chapter. Even without the WIRC consent, the sub-clause three of bylaw six empowers the ICWAI to take an individual decision based on material on record, the bench observed. “It is a well-settled principle in law that in educational matters when an expert body takes a decision on the basis of material on record, this court will not sit in appeal over the decision of such a professional body,” the bench ruled.