COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL versus KAMLESH VADILAL MEHTA

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL versus KAMLESH VADILAL MEHTA

The exclusion of proprietary Chartered Accountant firms from empanelment is arbitrary, unfair, and fails the test of Article 14. Once Chartered Accountants are qualified and eligible, a sub-classification restricting empanelment to partnership firms lacks valid reason and discriminates against sole proprietors. Statutory functions exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor General are subject to judicial review, not merely matters of policy.

Parties
Appellant: Comptroller and Auditor General; Respondent: Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 11458/1995 / Appeal From High Court (division Bench) Decision Affirming Single Judge Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 14 Discrimination, Empanelment Policy, Judicial Review, Statutory Functions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Company Law Article 14 Discrimination Empanelment Policy Judicial Review Statutory Functions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comptroller and Auditor General

Appellant

Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 11458/1995 / Appeal From High Court (division Bench) Decision Affirming Single Judge Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of proprietary Chartered Accountant firms from empanelment for audit of government companies violates Article 14
  2. 2 Whether Comptroller and Auditor General's appointment of auditors is a statutory function subject to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of proprietary Chartered Accountant firms from empanelment is arbitrary, unfair, and fails the test of Article 14. Once Chartered Accountants are qualified and eligible, a sub-classification restricting empanelment to partnership firms lacks valid reason and discriminates against sole proprietors. Statutory functions exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor General are subject to judicial review, not merely matters of policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Policy excluding proprietary firms from empanelment set aside and declared unconstitutional