Sri Aidan vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference in its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was an agreement between two private parties, and the default on post-dated cheques arising from this agreement could not be a subject matter for writ proceedings. Furthermore, the Court stated that a direction to initiate action for alleged misconduct against a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) could not be issued in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Aidan, filed a writ petition seeking a direction against respondents 1 to 5 (State of Telangana, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ICAI, Board of Discipline, and Chartered Accountants Association of Telangana) for their inaction on his representation dated 15.07.2026. This representation alleged professional misconduct, misappropriation of GST funds, and the use of forged GST challans by respondent 6, Sri T. Sai Kumar Goud, who is a Chartered Accountant. The petitioner had entered into an MoU with respondent 6 on 13.02.2021, where respondent 6 admitted liability and issued post-dated cheques, which were dishonored. Despite legal notices, no action was taken. The petitioner sought verification of forged GST records and initiation of statutory, disciplinary, and regulatory proceedings against respondent 6, including potential cancellation of his license.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct statutory, disciplinary, and regulatory proceedings against a private individual (Respondent No. 6) for alleged professional misconduct, misappropriation of GST funds, and use of forged GST challans, based on the inaction of state authorities (Respondents Nos. 1-5) in acting upon the petitioner's representation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the inaction of respondents 1 to 5 was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the authorities had a duty to act upon the representation concerning serious allegations of financial impropriety and professional misconduct, including the use of forged GST challans. The petitioner sought to compel the authorities to verify the alleged forged records and initiate appropriate proceedings. Revenue/State's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue or State respondents in the judgment.