2. W.P.No.35488 of 2022 is filed seeking following relief:
03.08.2022 bearing reference no. NF-11011/17/2019 by consequently
setting aside the same as the same are arbitrary, illegal, without
jurisdiction and pass such further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper considering the nature and circumstances of the present
case..."
3. W.P.No.19717 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
4. W.P.No.20212 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
"...to pass an order or orders, direction or writ more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Prohibition directing the Respondent to not proceed
in furtherance of the letter dated 15.06.2023 and letter bearing Ref No.
NCAS/COM00048V3/1 dated 20.07.2023 issued to the Petitioner, as the
same are arbitrary, illegal and wholly without jurisdiction; and
consequently set aside the said letters dated 15.06.2023 and
20.07.2023..."
5. W.P.No.20458 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
"...to pass an order or orders, direction or writ more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Prohibition directing the Respondent to not proceed
in furtherance of the letter dated 15.06.2023 and letter bearing Ref No.
NCAS/COM00048V3/2 dated 20.07.2023 issued to the Petitioner, as the
same are arbitrary, illegal and wholly without jurisdiction (to the extent
concerning Financial Years (F.Ys) 2017-18 and 2018-19); and
consequently set aside the said letters dated 15.06.2023 and
20.07.2023..."
6. W.P.No.29510 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief:
"...to pass an order or orders, direction or writ more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records and to
declare that the action of the Respondent in issuing Show Cause
Notice dated 04.10.2023 bearing reference no.NF-23/26/2022 by
consequently setting aside the same as the same are arbitrary,
illegal, without jurisdiction...."
7. W.P.No.5089 of 2024 is filed seeking following relief:
"...It is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any
order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition
directing the Respondent not to proceed in furtherance of the letter dated
8.1.2024 in reference file no.NF-23/32/2022 issued to the petitioner
being arbitrary, illegal and wholly without jurisdiction to the extent
concerning the financial years 2013-14 to 2016-17 issued under section
132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and consequently set aside the said
letter dated 8.1.2024.."
8. Writ Petition No.29510 of 2023 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in this batch of cases.
9. It is stated that the petitioner is Chartered Accountant and
fellow member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for
short "ICAI") and also partner of M/s.M.M.Reddy & Company,
Chartered Accountants vide No.FRN 010371S. It is further stated
that the petitioner is practicing since 2003 and he has got good
reputation. The respondent-National Financial Reporting Authority
(for short "NFRA"), which is a statutory regulatory body constituted
by the Government of India under Section 132(1) of Companies Act,
2013 conferred with powers to recommend and formulate accounting
and auditing standards, monitor and enforce the compliance thereof,
oversee the quality of service of professional accountants, suggest
measures required for improvement in the quality of service and
perform such other allied functions. It is stated that the respondent
while exercising the power as regulatory authority has issued
impugned show cause notice dated 09.11.2022 to the petitioner
directing him to submit audit files for Statutory Audit of M/s.
Concord Drugs Limited for the Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-
17. It is further stated that soon after receipt of said notice, the
petitioner has provided all the documents relating to the said
Financial Years vide letters dated 23.11.2022, 05.01.2023 and
17.01.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receipt
of the said letters, the respondent has issued impugned show cause
notice dated 04.10.2023 calling for explanation from him.
Challenging the same, W.P.No.29510 of 2023 is filed.
10. The respondent-Executive Director of NFRA filed counter
affidavit inter alia stating that NFRA is a Statutory Authority
established under Section 132 of Companies Act, 2013 and it was
brought into force w.e.f. 01.10.2018. It is further stated that the
object of constitution of authority is to maintain the required
discipline and accountability among the Chartered Accountant
professionals. It is stated that under Chartered Accountants Act,
1949 (for short "C.A.Act"), the authority to manage the affairs of the
ICAI was with the Council of institute constituted under Section 3 of
C.A.Act. But when the said system of self-regulation i.e, management
and regulation of Chartered Accountants did not operate in a
satisfactory manner, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance (2010) considered the Companies Bill, 2009 and
recommended for creation of a supervisory mechanism of auditing.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (2012)
considered the Companies Bill, 2011 and reaffirmed the need for an
independent regulator for accounting and auditing. As per the
recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committees, Clause
132 was inserted in the Companies Bill, 2011. The Bill was later
passed by the Parliament and consequently, the Companies Act,
2013 was enacted. However, since Section 132 was not notified, the
NFRA could not come into existence for several years. It is stated in
February, 2016, the Companies Law Committee was constituted by
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to make recommendations on the
implementation of the provisions of the Act. More importantly, while
doing so, the concerns of ICAI with respect to constitution of NFRA
were rejected by the Committee. It is stated that subsequently, the
NFRA was constituted on 01.10.2018 by Government of India under
sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act. It is further stated that
NFRA was brought into existence considering the importance and
need for stringent regulations in order to maintain accounting and
auditing standards, as emphasized by the Committee Reports and
the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is stated that
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.Sukumar vs. ICAI 1, a Committee of Experts was constituted and
said Committee submitted its report on 25.10.2018 highlighting the
fact that the accounting firms should not be left to self-regulate
themselves. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the involvement
of various Chartered Accountant companies in mismanaging the
affairs caused the loss to the investors, banks and tax payers and
the betterment of the ordinary citizens. In the counter affidavit,
various examples which lead to enormous destruction of wealth of
causing significant loss to the banks, manipulation of balance sheets
and destroying the confidence of investors in the stock markets, have
been furnished. It is also stated that various cases have been
registered against some of the Chartered Accountant companies by
the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate. It
is further stated that taking consideration of these factors, to reform
the regulatory structure of the auditing profession, the NFRA has
1 (2018) 14 SCC 360
been entrusted with the duty to examine the antecedents of the
chartered accountant professionals/companies and the provision i.e,
Section 132 was inserted into Companies Act and Rules were
amended by NFRA Rules, 2018 and the same are not arbitrary,
illegal and intra vires and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
11. Considered the submissions of Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel and Mr. Vikram Pooserla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners along with their Advocates on record
and Mr.Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned
counsel, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, learned counsel, Mr.V.Suradhish,
learned counsel representing Mr.T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent (NFRA) and perused the record.
12. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Vikram
Pooserla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the Companies Act was enacted in 2013 and received
Presidential assent on 29.08.2013 and the provisions of the Act were
brought into force on different dates. It is further submitted that so
far as date of enforcement of Section 132 of Companies Act, is
concerned, it was brought into force only on 24.10.2018 which is a
strong indication that it has no retrospective effect as it was not
notified till October, 2018. It is further submitted that there is a well-
established presumption that statute operate prospectively unless a
clear intention to the contrary is expressed, which is absent in
Section 132. For the above submissions, reliance was placed on
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township 2. It is
contended that the notification bringing Section 132 into force from
24.10.2018 makes it evident that it is intended to apply only
prospectively. No provision in the statute or in the NFRA Rules, 2018
authorizes retrospective application, or to examine the cases relating
to the previous period before constitution of the NFRA. It is
submitted that the Respondent's plea for retrospective interpretation
to cure past mischief is untenable, especially when the language of
the statute is clear and unambiguous as held in B.Premanand v.
Mohan Koikal 3. It is contended that a retrospective interpretation of
Section 132 would raise serious constitutional concerns under
Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, particularly because the
provision introduces a new regulatory framework with stringent
penal consequences that affect the vested rights of auditors. It is
further submitted that the impugned notices issued by NFRA relate
to audit periods prior to its constitution and seek to exercise penal
powers, which is impermissible in law as it is well established that
penal provisions are to be enforced prospectively. Learned Senior
2 (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Para 28-31) [Pg 57, 71/ Vol - I Petitioner's Compilation]
3 (2011) 4 SCC 266
Counsel further submitted that, in terms of the Standard on Quality
Control (SQC 1), specifically Article 23, auditors are required to
retain audit records for only seven years. Therefore, any attempt to
seek audit files beyond this statutory retention period is arbitrary,
unreasonable, and without justification. In support of his
submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision
of the Delhi High Court in N.Sethuraman v. ICAI 4, recognizing the
7-year retention limit. Finally, it is submitted that the power
exercised by NFRA to publish Audit Quality Review (AQR) Reports
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the auditors amounts
to an excessive and unfettered exercise of power, which is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Therefore,
prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions and restrain the NFRA
from proceeding against the petitioners in respect of audits
conducted prior to 2018.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NFRA
submitted that the word 'continue' in proviso to Section 132(4)(a) i.e,
"Provided that no other institute or body shall initiate or continue any
proceedings in such matters of misconduct where the National
Financial Reporting Authority has initiated an investigation under the
section", indicates that NFRA is empowered with retrospective
4 Judgment dated 21.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.12251/2019 by the High Court of
Delhi
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the powers conferred to
NFRA under Section 132 are retrospective/retroactive since NFRA
was constituted as a remedial measure to cure mischief in the
existing mechanism. It is also submitted that NFRA was brought into
force to establish an independent mechanism to ensure compliance
with auditing standards. For the above submissions, the learned
Counsel placed much reliance on reports of Parliament Standing
Committee on Finance. It is further submitted that Section 132 does
not affect any vested or substantive rights and therefore can have
retrospective operation. It is also submitted that enforcement of
Section 132 is merely a procedural change and the same does not
take away the rights which have been vested under the said
provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that no right of the
Petitioners is violated at the stage of issuing notice and seeking
documents and that they are not an 'aggrieved' person under law.
Further, it is submitted that NFRA as a Regulating Authority is
conferred with power not only initiating the penal action but also
taking suitable disciplinary action or for recommending disciplinary
action. Therefore, issuance of show cause notices would not debar
the NFRA to conduct an enquiry and the present writ petitions are
filed with misconception that the NFRA has not been conferred with
power for issuance of notices for the previous financial years to
unearth the misconduct on the part of the petitioners. In support of
his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in
Harish Kumar T.K v. NFRA 5 and submitted that the NCLAT held
that NFRA has retrospective jurisdiction for period prior to its
formation or prior to coming into effect of Section 132 and the said
findings have attained finality by the dismissal of Civil Appeals by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 22.03.2024 and
17.05.2024. Further, on the principle of doctrine of merger, the
learned counsel relied upon the decision in Pernod Ricard India (P)
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 6 and ultimately prayed to
dismiss the writ petitions.
14. In reply, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the plain and literal interpretation of the
term "continue" as used in the proviso to Section 132(4)(a) of the
Companies Act, 2013, prohibits parallel proceedings by other bodies
such as ICAI once the NFRA has initiated an investigation. It is
contended that the proviso is intended to prevent dual or overlapping
proceedings and does not, by implication, confer retrospective
jurisdiction on NFRA. It was further argued that in the absence of an
express statutory provision indicating retrospective operation, such a
construction is impermissible in law. The learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that Section 132 prescribes enhanced penal
5 Judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed in CA(AT) No. 68/2023 by NCLAT
6 (2010) 8 SCC 313
consequences for misconduct, including higher monetary penalties
and debarment periods, which significantly differ from those under
the C.A Act, 1949. Thus, the amended provision has a substantive
impact and must be applied prospectively. Reliance is placed on
Shah and co. v. State of Maharashtra & another 7. For the
maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel relied
upon the decisions in Union of India and another v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana 8 and Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Kumar
Singh and others 9. Placing reliance on the decision in Experion
Developers Pvt Ltd v. Himasnhu Dewan & Ors.10, it is submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified the distinction between
doctrine of merger, law of precedents and res judicata. It is further
submitted that the principles laid down by the Full bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika
Township's case (supra) were not considered by the NCLAT and
therefore, the decision of NCLAT is per incuriam.
15. The core issue called for to address in these cases is "whether
the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) constituted under
Section 132(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, is empowered to
7 1967 SCC OnLine SC 20
8 (2006) 12 SCC 28
9 (1996) 1 SCC 327
10 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1029
investigate into matters of professional misconduct relating to
Financial Years (F.Ys) prior to its constitution on 01.10.2018?".
16. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present
writ petitions are stated as under:
17. The Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, acting
on the reports of the Standing Committee on Finance has amended
Section 132 of the Companies Act for constitution of National
Financial Regulatory Authority (NFRA). The key functions entrusted
to NFRA is to make recommendations to the Central Government on
the formulation and laying down of accounting and auditing policies
and standards for adoption by companies or their auditors, monitor
and enforce the compliance with accounting standards and auditing
standards as prescribed, oversee the quality of Auditing Professionals
associated with ensuring accounting standards and suggest
measures required for improvement of quality of service and such
other allied matters. Prior to amendment of the said provision under
the Companies Act, the ICAI constituted under the provisions of the
Chartered Accountants Act is empowered to regulate and monitor the
accounting/auditing standards of the professionals associated with
the accountancy. Having noticed that ICAI is not effectively
regulating or controlling the activities of accountancy and persons
associated with auditing the reports and having experienced that the
audit reports/accountancy reports and its credibility which
ultimately would have impact on the financial indiscipline, appointed
various Standing Committees for suitable recommendations for
amending the provisions of the Companies Act for imposing suitable
disciplinary action on the persons responsible for finalization of the
audit reports on quid pro quo and denuding the reputation of the
Government and its subsidiaries for obtaining financial sanction on
the international platform.
18. Under Section 210-A of the Companies Act, 1956, the Central
Government is conferred with the power to constitute an advisory
committee called as "National Advisory Committee on Accounting
Standards" (NACAS) to advise the Central Government on the
formulation and laying down of accounting policies and accounting
standards for adoption by Companies or class of companies under
the Act. The Companies Bill, 2009 empowers the NACAS to make
recommendations to the Central Government both on accounting
standards as well as auditing standards. The Committee submitted
various suggestions to face economic challenges across the globe in
recent past, casting a doubt on role of Management of auditors and
need to promote an independent regulatory regime conferring power
to recommend the Standards on Corporate Financial Reporting,
Corporate Audit and Quality of Service of Professionals associated
with ensuring compliance and overall observation of functions of the
persons associated with the accountancy. The Parliament duly
taking into consideration of the various reports by NACAS and the
Standing Committee on Finance has amended Section 132 of the
Companies Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 132 was amended w.e.f
01.10.2018 under which the NFRA was constituted to curb the
indiscipline in accountancy and allied matters relating to the
auditors/chartered accountants. In exercise of powers under sub-
Section (11) of Section 132 of Companies Act, the Central
Government has appointed the various committees to regulate and
discharge the functions of the NFRA and the Rules made thereunder
were amended from time to time called as 'NFRA Rules, 2018'. After
constitution of the NFRA, to monitor and enforce the compliance with
accounting standards, NFRA has issued the impugned notices to the
auditors/chartered accountant companies to verify the reports
relating to the previous periods of accounts prior to the constitution
of NFRA. Questioning that NFRA is not conferred with power to make
an enquiry for the accounting years prior to its constitution, these
writ petitions came to be filed.
19. A careful examination of the submissions made by both sides
reveals that the core issue to be addressed is whether the word
"continue" mentioned in the proviso to Section 132(4) of the
Companies Act, 2013 empowers NFRA to conduct inquiries or
investigations for financial years prior to its constitution. The proviso
states that "no other institute or body shall initiate or continue any
proceedings in such matters of misconduct where the NFRA has
initiated an investigation under this section." The petitioners argue
that, in the absence of any pending proceedings before any other
authority or forum at the time of NFRA's constitution, NFRA cannot
assume jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings for prior years. They
contend that this amounts to a violation of Article 20(1) of the
Constitution of India, which prohibits conviction or imposition of a
penalty for any act that was not an offence at the time it was
committed or imposes a greater penalty than what existed at that
time. It is further submitted that, prior to the amendment of Section
132(4)(c) of the Companies Act, the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949, particularly Section 21B, governed the disciplinary
mechanism. Under the Chartered Accountants Act, the penalties for
professional misconduct were limited to removal of the member's
name from the register either permanently or for a fixed period, or
the imposition of a fine up to Rs.5 lakhs. After the amendment to
Section 132(4)(c), the penalties became significantly more stringent,
which reads as follows:
20. The punishment defined under the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949 would vary after amendment of Section 132(4)(c) of the
Companies Act imposing higher penalty is detailed below:
"(I) Not less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to five times of
the fees received, in case of individuals; and
(II) not less than ten lakh rupees, but which may extend to ten times of
the fees e received, in case of firms;
(B) debarring the member or the firm from-
I. being appointed as an auditor or internal auditor or undertaking any
audit in respect of financial statements or internal audit of the functions
and activities of any company or body corporate; or
II. performing any valuation as provided under Section 247, for a
minimum period of six months or such higher period not exceeding ten
years as may be determined by the National Financial Reporting
Authority."
21. A plain reading of the amended provisions of Section 132(4)(c)
of the Companies Act, 2013 clearly indicates that the punishment
prescribed under the said provision is significantly higher than what
was stipulated under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949. Under the new provision, not only are higher monetary
penalties imposed, but additional consequences such as debarment
from undertaking audit or valuation work for a specified period are
also introduced. This change in the nature and extent of the penalty
reinforces the petitioners' contention that the provision is
substantive in nature and, therefore, cannot be applied
retrospectively.
21. It is a well-settled principle of law that the legislature has the
authority to enact laws with either prospective or retrospective effect.
However, while it may retrospectively declare an act to be an offence,
it cannot impose a punishment greater than what was prescribed at
the time the act was committed. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of
India protects individuals from ex post facto penal laws in respect of
conviction and punishment. Although this protection does not extend
to civil consequences such as forfeiture of property, cancellation of
licenses, or debarment from business activities, any retrospective
application of a penal or quasi-penal provision must be narrowly
interpreted. Therefore, while NFRA may be permitted to initiate
disciplinary inquiries for misconduct committed prior to its
constitution, it cannot impose enhanced punishments that were not
in force at the relevant time.
22. Coming to the instant case, the impugned show cause notices
issued by NFRA merely seek explanations and information from the
petitioners concerning audits conducted during financial years prior
to 2018. The information sought from the petitioners under the show
causes would lead to commencing an enquiry and consequential
action thereon for imposition of quantum of punishment would
depend upon the result of the enquiry. Deciding these issues at this
stage is premature and the petitioners if aggrieved with the quantum
of punishment, if any, imposed are entitled to question the same
before the appropriate forum.
23. Be that as it may, the issues raised in this writ petitions are no
longer res integra. In the similar circumstances, when NFRA while
exercising powers under Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read
with Rule 11(6) of NFRA Rules, 2018, issued notices to the various
other auditors and companies and passed orders, the same were
questioned on the file of the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Company Appeal
(AT) No.68/2023 and batch. The NCLAT placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Sukumar's case
(supra); Union of India and others vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells
LLP and another 11; Mayarani Punch CIT, Income Tax Deli12 and
S. Ganesan vs A.K. Joscelyne 13, Zile Singh vs. State of
Haryana 14 dismissed the appeals vide common order dated
01.12.2023 observing that if new law is made to take care of known
wrongs for the benefits of the society on its own, then the provision
of retrospective application in new law may not be required and
necessary implication need to be made out from the language
employed. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2013 in Company
11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 557
12 1986(1) SCC 445
13 1957 SCC Online Cal 43
14 (2004) 8 SCC 1
Appeal (AT) No.68 of 2023 passed by the NCLAT, the Civil Appeal
No.3656 of 2024 was filed on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 dismissed
the appeal confirming the order of the NCLAT.
24. While the matter stood thus, W.P. (C) No.5842/2023 and batch
came to be filed on the file of the High Court of Delhi, precisely
raising the very similar issues raised in this batch of writ petitions.
The challenge made in those writ petitions are the validity of Section
132 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules 3, 8, 10, 11 of NFRA
Rules, 2018. While questioning the validity, the petitioners therein
also questioned the issuance of notices by the NFRA for
commencement of disciplinary action in respect of perceived acts of
professional or other misconduct and for consequential imposition of
the penalties. The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi vide
judgment dated 07.02.2025 after exhaustive consideration of various
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the validity of
Section 132 of Companies Act and NFRA Rules, 2018 stated that the
same does not amount to violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution
of India. The Division Bench at Para 337 (P), observed as follows:
"As was pertinently observed by the Supreme Court, a statute is not
liable to be viewed as having retroactive operation merely because it
draws upon an event or act which preceded its promulgation. Acts of
misconduct committed prior to October 2018 were neither accorded nor
conferred a shield of immunity. Section 132 does not create a new
disqualification or create a novel set or category of misdemeanors to
constitute professional or other misconduct. The conduct of an audit, an
individual or a firm remains liable to be enquired into based on the
obligations and duties which held the field even prior to the introduction
of Section 132. The conduct of an audit would continue to be examined
and evaluated based on those legal obligations and set of rules which
existed earlier."
25. The aforesaid observations would manifest that the NFRA is
conferred with power to conduct an enquiry for the act of misconduct
committed prior to October, 2018 and Section 132 of the Companies
Act, does not create a new disqualification or create a novel set or
category of misdemeanor to constitute professional or other
misconduct. Questioning the aforesaid judgment, the NFRA has filed
Special Leave Petition No.4139 of 2025 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 17.02.2025, passed the following order:
"xxxx.... We are informed that the petitioner will be filing special leave
petition(s) against the impugned judgment in the context of the other writ
petitions which have also been allowed.
Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, in cases
where there were no Audit Quality Review Reports (AQRR) prepared and
no final orders have been passed, the proceedings may continue but no
final orders will be passed. We clarify that where final orders have been
passed, such orders will not be given effect to."
26. In the present cases, the challenge is made to the authority of
NFRA in issuing show cause notices to the petitioners. It is well
settled law that the Writ Courts are ordinarily refrained from
exercising the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the show cause
notices. Even the issue relating to the jurisdiction can also be
questioned before the appellate authority constituted under the
statute. In view of upholding Section 132 of Companies Act by the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5842/2023 and
batch and the impugned action in these writ petitions is only against
the show cause notices and judgment of the High Court of Delhi is
subject matter of SLP No.4139 of 2025 and batch, wherein the Apex
Court observed that in cases where there were no Audit Quality
Review Reports (AQRR) prepared and no final orders have been
passed, the proceedings may continue but no final orders would be
passed. It was further clarified that where final orders have been
passed, such orders shall not be given effect to. For the aforesaid
reasons, the present writ petitions filed questioning the show cause
notices are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
27. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 10.06.2025
scs
