Download Contact Us Feedback
About COA Act, Rules & Regulations Architectural Education Professional Practice Judgments & Circulars Events & Activities
Court Judgements Government Letters Government Circulars
 

Important Court Judgements

(Court Judgements can be downloaded by clicking the links provided)

 

Karnataka High Court Order dated 22.11.2012 (NEW)

 

Supreme Court Judgement dated 19.10.2012 on Sexual Harassment of Women (NEW)

 

Bombay High Court Judgement dated 11.06.2012

Orissa High Court Judgement dated 31.01.2012

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench Judgement dated 08.08.2011

Bombay High Court, Division Bench Judgement dated 08.09.2004

High Court of Rajasthan Judgement dated 08.01.2008

Delhi High Court Judgement dated 12.07.2005

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgement dated 12.07.2005

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgement dated 02.08.2005

High Court of Madras Judgement dated 21.07.2003

 

Court Judgements

Supreme Court Judgements

Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India
M.C.D. & others Vs. Shri Ram Kumar Bhardwaj & others in the matter of further registration of architects with M.C.D.
and issue of licenses to architects registered with the Council of Architecture.

Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India
Shri Om Prakash Mittal Vs. Council of Architecture in the matter of rejection of his application for registration
u/s. 25(b) of the Architects Act, 1972, by the Council of Architecture.

Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India
Kaustubha Nand Pandey Vs. Council of Architecture etc. in the matter of rejection of his application for registration
u/s. 25(b) of the Architects Act, 1972, by the Council of Architecture.

Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India
Girish Mistry Vs. the Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board & others regarding use of tittle & style of Architect
by a firm of architects & its formation and what constitutes the Architectural consultancy firm for carrying out
the profession of architecture.

High Court Judgements

In the High Court of Delhi
M.C.D. & others Vs. Shri Ram Kumar Bhardwaj & others in the matter of further registration of architects with M.C.D.
and issue of licenses to architects registered with the Council of Architecture.

In the High Court of Delhi
Shri Om Prakash Mittal Vs. Council of Architecture in the matter of rejection of his application for registration
u/s. 25(b) of the Architects Act, 1972, by the Council of Architecture.

In the High Court of Delhi
Kaustubha Nand Pandey Vs. Council of Architecture etc. in the matter of rejection of his application for registration
u/s. 25(b) of the Architects Act, 1972 by the Council of Architecture.

In the Gauhati High Court
Smt. Tulya Gogoi & others Vs. Association of Architects, Assam & others regarding prohibition against use of title &
style of architect.

In the High Court of judicature at Bombay
Manoj Balkrishna Lad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others regarding the admission of 3-year Diploma holders into
2nd year of the 5-year B.Arch. course.

In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Girish Mistry Vs. the Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board & others regarding use of title & style of Architect
by a firm of architects & its formation and what constitutes the Architectural consultancy firm for carrying out
the profession of architecture.

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
The Executive Students Council, College of Architecture, Goa Vs. Government of Goa and Ors. in the matter of upholding the provisions of the Council of Architecture Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983.

In the High Court of judicature at Bombay
All India Council for Technical Education Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in the matter of fixing the 30th June of a
year as the date for communicating intake by AICTE to Government of Maharashtra.


Lower Court Judgements

In the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari at Delhi
Council of Architecture Vs. R.R. Nagpal regarding misuse of title & style of architect.

In the District Court, Civil Judge, Delhi
Sudesh Pal Jain Vs. Council of Architecture in the matter of rejection of his application for registration u/s.25(b)
of the Architects Act, 1972, by the Council of Architecture.

In the Court of VIth Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune
M/s. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd., Pune Vs. Council of Architecture, New Delhi and another in the matter of misuse of
title and style of architect by M/s. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd., Pune.



Go to top
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India


Item No.10      Court No.7      041281     Section XIV

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL)
Nos. 6469 and 9396 of 1980 A/N
(From the judgement and order dated 2-4-80 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

In L:P:A. No. 59/75

Municipal Corpn. of Delhi ....……PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Ram Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors. etc. (with appln for stay) …….RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 22-4-83. This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM: 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sen
Hon'ble Mr. Justice E. S. Venkatramiah

FOR THE PETITIONER(S):
Mr. L. N. Sinha, A. G. Mr. Subhash Bhatt &
Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advs.

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. S. L. Bhatia, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. R. Aggarwal and
Mr. K. S. Rohtagi, Advs.

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Special Leave Petitions are dismissed

Sd/-
Court Master

Go to top
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India


Item No. 3      Court No. 6      Section XIV

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


Petition(s) for Special Leave to appeal (Civil/No.(s) 6612 of 1983
(From the Judgement and order date 24.11.82 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No.142/82)

Om Prakash Mittal ...............PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Council of Architecture & Anr. ................RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 12.3.90 : This/These petition(s) was/were called on for hearing today

CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice

FOR THE PETITIONER(S):
Mr. Wazir Singh and Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advs.

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, Adv. (NP)

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-                   Sd/-
Seema               V.K. Minocha
Court Master     Court Master

Seal Supreme Court of India

237489


Go to top
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


Petition(s) for Special Leave to appeal (Civil/No.(s) 12110 of 1983
(From the Judgement and order date 6.1.1983 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No.146/1983)

Kastuba Nand Pandey                                               ...............PETITIONER(S)

       VERSUS

Council of Architecture & Anr.                                ................RESPONDENT(S)
(With appln. for condn. of delay)

Date : 26.4.90 : This/These petition(s) was/were called on for hearing today

CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai
Hon'ble Mr. Justice

FOR THE PETITIONER(S):   Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
                                                Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Adv.

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, Adv. (NP)

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Delay not condoned. Consequently Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

           Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-
         Seema                                                                                                      V.K. Minocha
    Court Master                                                                                                  Court Master

 

Seal Supreme Court of India

237489


Go to top
Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court of India


Item No. 30                                                       Court No. 4                                                            Section IX

A/N MATTER

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


Petition(s) for Special Leave to appeal (Civil/No. 18082 of 2000
(From the Judgement and order dated 20/06/2000 in SCA 1111/99 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad)

Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board           ...............PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Girish Mistry & Ors.                                ................RESPONDENT(S)
                                                          (With prayer for interim relief)

Date : 17.09.2001 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:   Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Patnaik
                Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal

FOR THE PETITIONER(S):   Mr. S.C. Patel, Adv.
                                          Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Adv.

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): Mr. V.N. Raghhupathy, Adv.
                                           Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Menon, Adv.
                                           Mr. H.A. Raichura, Adv.

Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdarw this petition. The prayer for withdrawl is allowed. But,the respondents having entered appearance are entitled to cost, which is fixed at 5,000/-.                                                

This amount will be equally divided amongst and paid to Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 by the petitioner, within four weeks from today.

The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

           Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-
     (J.S. Rawat)                                                                                                  (Suneet Bala Sharma)
    Court Master                                                                                                  Court Master

 

SEAL
Supreme Court of India

19/09/2001                              


Go to top
In the High Court of Delhi


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

L.P.A. No.59 of 1975

  1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through the Commissioner, Town Hall, Delhi.

  2. The Commissioner the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi.

  3. The Executive Engineer (Bld), Building Department (HQ), Town Hall, Delhi. ……PETITIONERS

VERSUS

  1. Shri Ram Kumar Bhardwaj, S/o. Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, 25/149 Shaktinagar, Delhi-7

  2. Shri Kasturi Lal, S/o. Shri Panju Ram, 76-A, East Azad Nagar, Shahdara Delhi.

  3. Shri Miri Lal Sanoriya, S/o. Shri Nanak Chand Sanoriya, 2/44 Roop Nagar, Delhi-7

  4. Shri R.G. Sanoria, S/o Shri Niader Mal Sanoria, 243, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-6

  5. Shri C.L. Ghai, S/o. Jiwand Lal, 1/32 B, Poorvi Marg, New Delhi-6.

  6. Shri Radha Lal Saxena, S/o. Shri Brij Basi Lal Saxena, C-1/444, S.J.D.A., New Delhi.7

  7. Shri Chanan Ram Sharma, S/o. Sh. Manak Chand Sharma. 4/60, Roop Nagar, Delhi-7.

  8. Shri P.S. Jain, S/o. Sh. Bansari Das Jain, 2153, Gali Hanuman Pershad, Masjid Khajoor, Delhi-6. …….RESPONDENTS

LETTERS PATENT UNDER X OF THE LETTERS PATENT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23.5.1975 BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RANGARAJAN IN C.W.P. NO. 509/75 and 515/75.

This the 2nd day of April, 1980.


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL.

FOR THE PETITIONER:
SHRI MAHARAJ KISWAN WITH SHRI P.R MONGA, ADVOCATE.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:
SHRI D.D CHAWLA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI C.L CHAUDHERY, ADVOCATE

ORDER

V.S. DESHPANDE C.J. (ORAL):

The respondents are registered as architects under the Architects Act, 1972 and practice as such in the Union Territory of Delhi. They filed two writ petitions : challenging the power of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to impose restrictions on their right to practice as architects. The restrictions and the basis on which the restriction was imposed may be described as below :-

Section 2 (25) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act) is as below:

"Licensed architect" 'licensed draughtsman' 'licensed engineer, 'licensed plumber, `licensed surveyor' and 'licensed town planner' mean respectively a person licensed under the provisions of this act as an architect, draughtsman, engineer, plumber, surveyor and town planner." .

Since the definition of section 2(25) contemplates that a licensed architect or a licensed draughtsman, it is necessary to know the provisions which empower the Corporation to license an architect or a draughtsman under the Act. Section 430 (1) of the Act states that whenever it is provided in this Act or any bye-law made there under that a license or a "written permission may be granted for any purpose, such license or a written permission shall be signed by the Commissioner or by the officer empowered to grant the same under this Act or the bye laws made there under". There is no specific provision in the Act itself empowering the Corporation to issue license to an architect or a draughtsman. Section 481 (1) of the Act empowered the Corporation to make bye- laws for various matters. Part F thereof empowers the making of bye-laws relating to buildings. Part L thereof empowers the making of bye-laws relating to miscellaneous matters. Clause 97 of Part L is .as follows :-

"(7) Any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed by bye-laws made under this Act or in respect of which this Act makes no provisions or makes insufficient provision and provision is, in the opinion of the Corporation, necessary for the efficient municipal government of Delhi."

This is a residuary power to make bye-laws given to the Corporation, if the making of such bye-laws is necessary "for the efficient municipal government of Delhi".

Whatever may have been the position before the coming into force of the Architects Act, 1972, what we have to consider is whether after the coming into force of the said Act the Delhi Municipal Corporation has any power to regulate the practice of architects by the insistence that they must possess a license issued by the Corporation. The Architects Act, 1972 sets out the qualification to be possessed by the persons to be registered as architects under the said Act. It also prohibits persons who do not have such registration from describing themselves as architects and also deals with disciplinary action for misconduct of architects. It is, therefore, a complete enactment the effect of which is that a person cannot call himself an architect unless he is registered under the said Act. Of course, unlike the Advocates Act, which restricts there under, the Architects Act does not restrict the practice by architects to persons registered under the said Act. Therefore, some persons who cannot call themselves architects may still be free to do the work which is ordinarily done by architects and they are not dealt with by the Architects Act, whether the Corporation can deal with such persons is not a question which arises before us. Our considerations is limited to the question whether the corporation can regulate the profession and practice of architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 by insisting that the architects practicing in Delhi and submitting plans for construction of buildings for the approval of the corporation must possess licenses issued by the Corporation.

The provisions in the Act on which such authority could be claimed by the corporation have been discussed above and it has been found that there is no specific provision in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act itself authorising the corporation to issues licenses to architects. We have, therefore, to seek for such provisions in the bye-laws, 69 bye-laws 6, 9 and 10(2) of the Building Bye-laws, 1959 refer to the licensed architects as being persons who can submit building plans. In view of the definition of "licensed architects" in section 2(25) the licensed architects referred to in the bye-laws have to be persons who are licensed under the provisions of the Act. The result is that on a consideration of these bye-laws the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation, issued the letter, dated 7th May, 1974 which is Annexure A to writ petition. In this letter it was proposed that the corporation may frame bye-laws for licensing and registration, inter alia, of draughtsman and architects as required by virtue of powers under 2(25) read with sections 430 and 431 of the Act, and Bye-laws 6 and 9 of the Building bye-laws, 1959. In the bye-laws proposed in this letter, provision is sought to be made to prescribe qualifications to be held by architects and draughtsman before licenses could be issued to them, for payment of license fees, deposit of security amounts by them and certain penalties to be imposed on them for contravention of these bye-laws. The whole scheme of such regulation was challenged by the respondents.

The writ petitions of the respondents are allowed by the learned Single Judge. who granted reliefs prayed for, namely to declare that this regulatory scheme was contrary to the Architects Act, 1972 and superseded by the said Act and, therefore, the purported action of the Corporation was ultra vires the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The resolution No.690, dated 3.9.1974, and the orders dated 2.4.1975 and 15.4.1975 were also apparently quashed by, allowing the writ petitions as a whole. These appeals have been preferred by the Corporation against the said decisions of learned Single Judge.

Two considerations are relevant to determine the authority of the Corporation to regulate the practice of the architects in submitting building plans to the Corporation for approval. Firstly, whether the Act and bye-laws framed validly there under authorise the Corporation to do so, and secondly, what is the effect on the authority of the Corporation, if any, of the passing of Architects Act, 1972.

CONSIDERATION NO.1

Presumably, section 2(25) of the Act contemplated issue of licenses to architects and draughtsman because at the time the Act was framed and enacted there was no Act providing for the registration of architects and issuing of registration certificates to them and thus regulating the profession and practice of Architects. Further, there may be other persons who cannot be registered as architects under the Architects Act, 1972 and in respect of such persons it is arguable that the Corporation had to make some provision because the building plans submitted to the Corporation have to be by persons who are qualified to the satisfaction of the Corporation. It is necessary for the Corporation to ensure that building plans are made by qualified persons and since the Corporation authorities cannot be expected to scrutinise the building plans with a view to redrafting them in each and every case, some preliminary safeguard that the plans have been prepared by qualified persons could be insisted up in by corporation. The authority for making bye-laws for this purpose is somewhat tenuous, but it may be spelt out from the provision of section 481 part F and Part L, particularly sub section (i) of part L containing the words necessary for the efficient municipal Government of Delhi. In so far as the building plans submitted to the Corporation made by persons who are not architects under the Architect's Act, 1972 are concerned, we need not say anything as to the power of the Corporation to insist on such to the persons possessing licenses to be issued by the Corporation under the bye-laws framed by the Corporation. In our view, therefore, the authority of the Corporation, if any, is restricted to the licensing and making other related provisions to govern the qualifications and conduct of persons other than the registered architects while submitting building plans to the Corporation. But as will be shown under the second consideration below, the Corporation does not possess any such power after the coming into force of the Architects Act, 1972 in relation to persons who are registered as architects there under.

CONSIDERATION NO.2

Section 502 of the Act is as follows :

"Save as: provided in this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be constructed as authorising the disregard by the corporation or any municipal authority or any municipal officer or other municipal employees of any law for the time being enforce."

This salutory provision recognises that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act being a general measure relating to the functioning of the Corporation is not expected to provide for the details of the various related questions with which the Corporation may have to deal for the time being only or in the absence of special law dealing with such matters. The Architects Act, 1972 is a special law dealing with the qualifications to be possessed by persons for being registered as architects and restricting the terms "architect" or "registered architect" to such persons only. Since the possession of a registration certificate under the Architects Act, 1972 regarded by Parliament as sufficient qualification for the practice of architects and since all related questions have been dealt with in respect of architects by the said Act, It became unnecessary for the Corporation to do so thereafter. In view of section 502 of the Act, the provisions referred to above which could be constructed authorising the corporation to regulate the licensing of architects and draughtsman could not be so constructed after coming into force of the Architects Act, 1972.



We accordingly declare that the judgements under appeal by the learned single Judge are not to be understood to mean that the impugned actions of the Corporation including the bye-laws and the resolutions or orders referred to in relief(s) asked for in the writ petitions are quashed for all purposes. It is sufficient for us to declare that none of these provisions will affect in any way the status and practice of persons. including the possession of license and payment of license fee or amounts or security. etc. and the respondents shall be free to act as architects and submit building plans to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi without having to comply with any of these provisions.

Subject to these observations. the appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.

Sd/-                 Sd/-
B.N. Kirpal        V .S. Despande
Judge                 Chief Justice

Seal High Court of Delhi


Go to top
In the High Court of Delhi

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
No. C.W.No.547/80

Shri Om Prakash Mittal, through Shri Raghubir Malhotra with Mr. Yash Pal and Mukul Gupta, Advocates

VERSUS

Council of Architecture and ors., through Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, Advocates

Date of Decision : September 17, 1982

CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. WAD

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgement? Yes

S.B. Wad, J

In this petition, under Section 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Council of Architecture passed on October 9, 1979, refusing the registration to the petitioner as an Architect, under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972. The relevant portion of the order reads:

"I regret to inform you that on the basis of the documents submitted, and your personal interview, you cannot be registered as an Architect under Section 25(b) of the Architects Act, 1972 as the Council is not satisfied that you were engaged in practice of ex service as an Architect for more than 5 years prior to 27th April, 1974."

The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that Sections 35 and 37 of the Act violate Article 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

For appreciating the petitioner's grievance, the object and scheme of the Act will have to be noted. The statement of objects and reasons fully explain the reasons for the passing of the Act. The statement reads:

"Since independence and more particularly with the implementation of the Five-Year Plans, the building construction activity in our country has expanded almost on a phenomenal scale. A large variety of buildings, many of extreme complexity and magnitude like multi-storied office buildings, factory buildings residential houses, is being constructed each year. With this increase in the building activity, many unqualified persons calling themselves as architects are undertaking the construction of buildings which are uneconomical and quite frequently are unsafe, thus brining into disrepute the profession of architects. Various organisations, including the Indian Institute of Architects, have repeatedly emphasised the need for statutory regulation to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as architects. With the passing of this legislation, it will be unlawful for any person to designate himself as `architect' unless he has the requisite qualifications and experience and is registered under the Act. The Legislation is generally on the same line as similar Act in other countries."

Section 37 of the Act prescribes that after the expiry of one year from the date/appointed/under sub section (2) of Section 24, no person other than a registered architect or a firm of architect shall use the title and style of architect. The appointed date fixed under the said Section is 27th April, 1974. Since the prescription of the qualifications and experience for the registration of a person as an architect were being prescribed for the first time by the said Act, it was necessary to make a special provision for the registration of persons who were working as architects before that date. Section 24 provides for a Registration Tribunal consisting of 3 persons to examine whether a person is qualified enough to be registered as an architect. The decision was to be taken by the Tribunal after giving the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after calling for relevant records, Register of architects prepared after such examination was described as the first register. It may be mentioned that the Central Government had appointed such Registration Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Justice P.N. Khanna of this Court and `the first register' was prepared. For the administration of the Act and for discharging various functions under the Act, Section 3 of the Act envisages a Council of Architecture. It is a large body of about 50 people with the representation of the profession, Central Government and State Governments.

Section 21 empowers the council to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education. Sections 18 and 19 empower the Council to regulate the courses for the training of architects and to enforce academic standards through the institutions imparting training in architecture. Section 22 empowers the Council to frame regulations to prescribe professional conduct, etiquette and a code of ethics for architects. The Council can remove an architect from the register if an architect is found quality of professional mis-conduct by virtue of power under Section 30 of the Act. As stated above, Section 37 prohibits a person from using the title or to style himself as an architect unless he is registered by the council. Section 35 gives a preference to a registered architect in matter of appointment as an architect under central or State Government or a local body.

Section 25 makes a provision for registration where the applications are made after 27th April, 1974, the appointed date under Section 24(2) of the Act. A person can be registered under Section 25, if the person

  1. holds a recognised qualification, or

  2. does not hold such a qualification but being a citizen of India, has been engaged in practice as an architect for a period of not less than 5 years prior to the date appointed under sub section 2 of Section 24, or

  3. possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed by the Rules."

The decision regarding registration is taken by the Registrar as empowered by Section 26(2) of the Act. Section 26(3) provides for the appeal to the Council against the order of the Registrar. The appeal should be filed within 3 months of the date of rejection of the application by the Registrar.

The petitioner passed the examination conducted by All India Council of Technical Education and was awarded national certificate in Civil Engineering in 1961. In 1967, the got the national diploma in Civil Engineering from the same institute. This diploma is held to be equivalent to Bachelor in Engineering examination. He got this diploma when he was serving as a junior engineer in C.P.W.D. He worked in C.P.W.D. as a Junior Engineer from September 27, 1963 till May 12, 1972. He was enrolled as a member by the Institute of Engineers (MIE) thereafter. In 1973, he was issued a license by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to practice as an engineer. He was also included in the list of approved architects and values under `Own Your Home' scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was permitted by the urban estate office, Faridabad to act as an architect and was registered as such.

On 24-7-1975 the petitioner made an application for registration in Form No.XI prescribed by the Rules. As against the column "Date of commencement of profession/service" the petitioner wrote "Affidavit attached". As against the column "whether practicing independently/as partner or employed", the petitioner wrote "practicing independently, Prof. M/s Mittal & Associates". In the affidavit the petitioner stated that he had been in the architectural profession for the last 15 years and had designed and supervised a number of buildings including residential, commercial and factory buildings. It may be noted that the petitioner did not disclose that he was working as a Junior Engineer in the CPWD from 1963 to 1972. He also did not disclose the particulars or plans of the buildings designed and supervised by him. At the time of the arguments, the counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner did not disclose in his application that he had applied for registration under Section 24 and the Registration Tribunal had rejected his application. For the purpose of this petition we may assume that a fresh application can be made under Section 25(b) even if an application under Section 24 is rejected. On receipt of the application, the Registrar of Council informed the petitioner that he had not mentioned "the actual date of commencement of the profession of architecture." The petitioner replied that he was "engaged in the profession and architecture since July 1, 1961". On the scrutiny of the application, the Registrar rejected the application for registration under Section 25(b) after considering the particulars stated in the application and the other relevant documents filed by the petitioner. This order was passed on 23.12.1976. The order reads:

"The applicant Shri O.P. Mittal does not hold any architectural qualification. He worked as Junior Engineer in CPWD from 27.9.1963 to 12-5-1972 as per statement made in the application filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for licenses No.E-571 vide certified copy of municipal license (receipt No.554057 dated 20.1.73). He, therefore, does not fulfill the condition of 5 years in practice as Architect prior to 27.4.74 under Section 25(b) of the Act. His application, therefore, is rejected."

His appeal against the order of the Registrar was rejected by the Council on October 9, 1979. The relevant portion of the order is quoted above.

The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: 

  1. That the order is not passed by the Council as required by Section 26 of the Act but by the Advisory Committee;

  2. He was denied the proper opportunity of being heard. He was not allowed to file some documents and certain documents filed by him were not considered;

  3. The order was a non speaking order;

  4. The Council misconstrued the provisions of Section 25(b) in as much as it took the view that the five years experience prescribed by the Section must be in private practice and not in Government service. His experience for 9 years in CPWD was over-looked.

  5. Section 37 of the Act was violative of Article 14 & 19 of the Constitution. Restricting the use of the title architect only to certain category of qualified persons as distinguished from other qualified persons has no rational nexus to the objects of the Act;

  6. The right to carry profession (Article 19(1) (g) is denied to him by virtue of the said Section;

  7. Section 35(2) was a discriminatory as it seeks to jeopardise & injuriously restrict the progress of otherwise qualified and competent practitioners of the profession of architectural;

  8. The impugned decision is discriminatory and violates Article 14 in as much as some other persons, similarly situate, have been granted the registration, while the same is refused to the petitioner.

I will first deal with the challenge to constitutionality of Section 35(2) and Section 37. Section 37(1) states that no person other than a registered architect, or a firm of architects shall use the title or style of architect one year after the appointed date under Sub-section (2) of Section 24. This provision is a necessary consequential provision to mandatory requirement of registration under the Act. The Act and the Regulations prescribe professional qualifications, for registration as an architect. They also lay down the standards of professional experience (of architectural work) required for an architect, where a person does not hold the professional academic qualifications prescribed under the Act. Right to practice a profession is guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Article 19(6) empowers State to make law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession. Laying down professional qualifications for the profession of architecture as done by the Act and prohibiting persons who do not fulfill the said qualifications from posing themselves as architects, is constitutionally permissible. The restriction, if all is a reasonable restriction. There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that there is no nexus with the object of the Act. The object of the Act, as stated above, is to prevent unqualified persons calling themselves as architects and undertaking the construction of buildings which are uneconomical or unsafe and who bringing the profession of architect into disrepute. The provision is essentially in the interest of general public and it is meant for protecting the public from unqualified persons working as architects. The restriction imposed by Section 37 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Challenge to the validity of Section 35 of the Act is also without a merit. Section 35 gives preference to registered architects in matters of employment in government service and in the service of local authorities. Public works are undertaken by these bodies for the welfare of the people, huge public fund are employed for that purpose. It is in public interest that the funds are properly utilised and substandard and uneconomical constructions are prevented. A qualified architect would naturally have preference over an unqualified person claiming to be an architect. There is no discrimination because by very definition a qualified architect falls in a different class from that of a person who is not qualified. Preference in public employment, is also an added encouragement for a prospective architect for achieving high professional and technical proficiency. Only two cases were cited by the counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the charge of discrimination. They are of Shri Gurcharan Singh and Shri H.H. Dixit.

Gurcharan Singh was carrying on independent practice as an architect. He was working as a senior architectural draftsman in the architectural wing of the C.P.W.D. From 1.1.1971, he was given in selection grade as an architectural assistant. His work was certified by Shri H. Rehman, Chief Architect, Shri O. Muthachen, Engineering Chief, Shri J.M. Binjamin, Chief Architect CPWD and Shri A.N. Banerjee, Secretary Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi. His architectural drawings of important and prestigious projects were also seen by the council. Shri Dixit, who holds a decree in Civil Engineering was working as a Civil Engineer in Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. Birmitrapur, Orissa. He was working both as an Architect and Civil Engineer in the company. The plans prepared by him and as sanctioned by municipality and town planning authority were produced. He had also produced sixty building plans prepared by him. The plan were examined by the committee and the committee was satisfied that Dixit had sufficient experience of designing major works. As against this, the petitioner did not produce any plans prepared by him and sanctioned by the Municipal authorities. He did not produce any letters engaging him as an architect. He also did not produce the income tax returns. He was specifically directed to produce these documents. Considering the material produced by the petitioner, the council was not satisfied that he had sufficient experience to be registered as an architect. I am satisfied from the record of Shri Gurcharan Singh and Dixit that the decision of the council was based on sufficient objective data. Compared to these two persons the petitioner did not disclose through any record that he possessed experience equal to that of Gurcharan Singh or Dixit. The charge of discrimination is ill conceived and is, therefore, rejected.



The argument of the petitioner is that it is the Council who should take the decision under Section 26 and the advisory committee had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The argument has no substance. As pointed out earlier, the Council consists of about 50 members. They come from various States. They also come as representatives of several institutions. Five architects are elected by Indian Institute of Architects from amongst its members. The members of the Council come from different parts of India. It is impossible and impracticable for such a large body to meet for each appeal. The Legislature is aware of this difficulty. Section 10(1) for the Act, therefore, provides that the Council may constitute committees for such general or special purposes as the council deems necessary to carry out its functions under the Act. The appointment of the Advisory Committee was made under Section 10. The decision of the advisory committee is approved by the Council. Even in quasi-judicial matters, it is not unknown to distribute the functions in more than one authority. Under the C.C.A. Rules the disciplinary authority appoints an enquiry officer to carry out the disciplinary enquiry but the final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority. In this case, the advisory committee consisted of eminent experts. Shri B. Kambo, who acted as a Chairman, was a Chief Town Planner and Architect and Adviser to Government of Rajasthan. Major General Harkirat Singh was the nominee of Institution of Engineers of India. Shri B.N. Banerjee was the Chief Architect to the government of West Bengal and Mr. M.H. Siddiqi, was the Chief Architect of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The submission of the petitioner is without any merit.

The next submission of the petitioner that he was not given the proper opportunity of being heard, is wrong. The petitioner was directed to appear in person and produce the documents such as the actual plans prepared by him, the letters of the municipal authorities sanctioning such plans, the letters of the owners of the buildings appointing him as an architect and income tax assessment orders. He merely submitted a general list of the works allegedly undertaken by him without furnishing the said documents. He was given oral hearing. It is not a fact that he was prevented from producing any documents. The letter which called upon him to produce the above mentioned documents also gave him liberty to produce any other documents in his possession. It is not the Council but the petitioner who denied to himself the opportunity of presenting sufficient material or arguments in support of his case. The allegation of denial of opportunity is thus false. The petitioner then submits that the council did not properly appreciate the requirement of Section 25(b). According to the petitioner Section 25(b) should be liberally construed so as to include the experience as an engineer also. He submits that every engineer performs architectural functions. In his opinion, the Council erroneously assumed that the experience of five years prescribed by Section 25(b) is an experience in a private practice. The submission of the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is too presumptuous for the petitioner, who was merely a Junior Engineer in C.P.W.D. to imagine that the persons of the eminence who sat in the advisory committee did not understand the meaning or requirement of Section 25(b) of the Act. Some of them are eminent engineers and architects. They know the difference between the professional work done by engineer and by an architect. There is certain amount of finality to the judgement of the high power expert body.



Their judgement as to what constitutes experience of architectural worker must be given high regard. It must be frankly admitted that the courts, which are not trained in the technical discipline of engineering and architecture, cannot claim any technical knowledge superior to the experts in the field. It is well recognised principle of law that the Court shall not substitute its own judgement to that of an expert particularly in the highly technical fields. The scope of enquiry by the Court is limited only to find out whether the technical requirements of law, in arriving at a decision, are followed or not or whether the decision is vitiated by maladies, fraud etc. The petitioner himself suppressed the fact that he was working as a junior engineer in the C.P.W.D. for 9 years. He did not mention it in the proforma application. Can such a petition now turn around and say that the Council did not consider this experience? As a matter of fact the statement of the petitioner that his experience in service is not considered is incorrect. The impugned order clearly states that Council was not satisfied that he was engaged "in practice/service as an architect for more than 5 years prior to 27th April, 1974". The Council has thus considered both his private practice as well as service. But merely to confirm that the Council was not on the wrong track, I permitted the petitioner to enumerate the duties of a junior engineer in C.P.W.D. By way of Annexure P.6 the petitioner has produced the duty chart of the junior engineers, as mentioned in Appendix XVI of the Central Public Works Department. The duty chart shows that the main functions of a junior engineer is to remain at the site throughout in order to see that works are executed according to the specifications, drawings and standards. He arranges for the materials and keeps the government materials in his custody. He records measurements of works and prepares extracts of measurements at the time of preparation of bills, or closing of muster rolls. He submits progress reports of works as required by the superiors. He maintains Register/Accounts such as cement register, curing register etc. He maintains accounts of temporary advances, stock accounts, and impress accounts etc. He maintains the register of inspection of buildings. He marks the attendance and maintains attendance register and muster rolls of the labour. His other duties are to prepare estimates of annual repairs, to submit reports of accidents, to make first aid arrangements in case of accidents, to verify the bills, to detect and report unauthorised occupation or additions or alterations. He keeps the drawings of buildings and services under his charge. He submits progress reports and other returns to the superior officers. He collects engineering data for estimates and prepares rough drawings and site plans connected therewith. He checks up the cost estimates. He helps the preparation and checking of design. He scrutinies the drawings prepared by the architects. The list of duties does not indicate that junior engineer is in any way concerned with the planning and designing of the buildings. He is almost at the lowest rung officer amongst the civil engineers. The Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Supdt. Engineer and Chief Engineer are superior officers in the normal hierarchy of civil engineers in all engineering establishments of the government. It is too much to say that the officer at the longest rung in engineer department, plans and designs the buildings. The duty chart fully justify the decision of the Council that the petitioner was not performing any architectural functions as a junior engineer. Once the period of 9 years as a junior engineer is excluded it is obvious that the period of five years as required by Section 25(b) would not be complete, even if it is assumed that the experience of the petitioner subsequent to 1972 was of the nature of architectural practice. However, the facts are different. The license which the petitioner secured from the M.C.D. is only for practicing as engineer and not as an architect. So is the case with the panel enlistment in L.I.C. Under the "Own Your House" Scheme (OYH) of the LIC, valuation of houses required to be made for the purposes of advancing loan to policy holders. The L.I.C. permits an engineer as well as an architect to furnish such valuation of a building. To work as a valuer of L.I.C., therefore, does not amount to carrying on the profession of an architect. The story as regards the registration with the urban estate office Faridabd, is not much different. In fact, no particulars are provided by the petitioner to judge the experience of architectural work performed by the petitioner by virtue of the said Faridabad registration. With the material produced by the petitioner (or lack or material) the Council was fully justified in taking the decision of not registering the petitioner as an architect.



The decision of the Council is however challenged on the ground that the appellate order is a non-speaking order. It is not correct to say that the order is not a speaking order. The petitioner did not produce any material, although full opportunity was given to him to do so.

The service particulars of the petitioners were not furnished by him in his application. The Registrar discovered them. It is too obvious as fact that a junior engineer in C.P.W.D. does not plan or design any buildings or constructions works. The other certificates of practice produced by the petitioner on their face, represent the practice as an engineer and not as an architect. The experts who sat in advisory committee are experts in the technical field. They are not trained lawyers or Judges. It is too much to expect that they should disclose in the order each of the arguments and to give reply to them point by point. If the decisions of expert bodies, are based on the proper data (evidence) and if the decisions are not coloured by any extraneous considerations and if the decisions show proper application of mind, such decision must be assumed to be reasoned orders. There are no allegations of the nature stated above, vitiating the decision of the council. This submission of the petitioner is also to be rejected.

For the reasons stated above, petition is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.

Sd/-
S.B. Wad
Judge

September 17, 1982

(To be Refer to the Reporter)


Go to top
In the High Court of Delhi


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Civil writ petition no. 1348 of 1980

Kaustubha Nand Pandey ................. PETITIONER

through Mr. Amlan Ghosh, Advocates

VERSUS

Council of Architecture etc. ................. RESPONDENTS

through Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, Advocate

Date of Decision : September 17, 1982

CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. WAD

  1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgement?

  2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

  3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgement?

S.B. Wad, J.

  1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Council of Architecture passed on 17th September, 1979 rejecting petitioner's application for registration as an Architect under Section 25(b) of the Architect's Act, 1972.

  2. The grounds for the challenge of the said order and the legal submissions are the same as are made in Civil Write Petition No. 547 of 1980. I have fully dealt with the said submissions in the said writ petition and have rejected the same. This petition was in fact heard along with the said petition.

  3. I will only examine now the submissions on merits made in this petition.

  4. The petitioner was born in 1949. He passed his High School Certificate Examination in 1962. In 1972 he passed B.Sc. Examination. According to the certificate produced by him from R.C. Mehta, Architect and Chartered Engineer, Surveyor and Estate Valuer, New Delhi, the petitioner was working as an Architectural Assistant with the firm from May 1961 to June, 1963. He has annexed the list of works executed by him. The list shows that about twenty construction works were undertaken by him, the total valuation of which runs into several lacs. Thereafter he was working as a Punch Operator at the Computer Centre, Structural Engineering Research Centre till 4.7.1971. From 5.7.1971 to 28.6.1972 he was working as a Programme Assistant, Meerut University. He claims to have continued his practice as an Architect thereafter.

  5. It may be seen that the petitioner does not hold any academic qualification as an Architect. He is not even a Civil Engineer as in the other case. He passed his Matriculation Examination in 1962 but claims that from 1961 to 1963 he was working as an Architect and had done works worth rupees several lacs. This means that between his age of twelve and fifteen he was practicing as an Architect. After the arguments were over the petitioner had filed an affidavit to state that according to his Janampatrika he was born on 28th June, 1946 and not in 1949 as is recorded in the School records. The petitioner must be some thing of a genius to do construction works worth lacs of rupees at the age of about 15. He has worked as a Computer Operator and as a Programme Assistant which has nothing to do with the Architectural profession. Even assuming that he was doing some architectural work after 1972 he did not complete the five years experience on 27.4.1974 as required by Section 25(b) of the Act. Before the Advisory Council he did not produce any drawings of the works done by him. The Council of Architectures was fully justified on the basis of the information and the documents supplied by the petitioner to come to a conclusion that he did not deserve to be registered as an Architect.

  6. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I do not pass any orders as to costs.

Rules is discharged.

Sd/-
S.B. Wad
Judge

September 17, 1982


Go to top
In the Gauhati High Court


IN THE GUAHATI HIGH COURT

(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)

BEFORE

The Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Brijesh Kumar
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.G. Agarwal

Date : 3-7-19999

WRIT APPEAL NO.114 OF 1996

    
   
APPELANTS :
 
  1. Smt. Tulya Gogoi
  2. Smt. Pranita Das
  3. Smt. P. Sakhirani Singh
  4. Smt. Nani Borah
  5. Smt. Mahmuda Begum
  6. Smt. Pronita Borpatra Gohai
  7. Smt. Arati Das
  1. Smt. Purabi Handique
  2. Smt. Meenakshi Deka
  3. Smt. Juna Mazumdar
  4. Smt. Pranati Kalita
  5. Smt. Aparazita Deka
  6. Smt. Pramila Kalita
  7. Smt. Modhumita Barua
  1. Smt. Himani Patowari
  2. Smt. Lipika Goswami
  3. Smt. Ranu Goel
  4. Smt. Minati Das
  5. Smt. Hemlata Talukdar
  6. Smt. Mumtaz Begum
  7. Smt. Bulu Bharali

Junior Architects,
         Public Works Department
         Building Division, Guwahati - 3

         By Advocates : Mr. B.K. Bas

                                 Mr.P.K. Roy
RESPONDENTS :

  1. Association of Architects, Assam,
    represented by its General Secretary -
    Shri Sriprakash Sandilya,
    Maniram Dewan Path,
    Chandmari, Guwahati - 21.
    (Near designer building)

  2. The State of Assam

  3. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam
    Public Works Department, Dispur

  4. The Chief Engineer,
    Public Works Department,
    Building Division, Assam,
    Guwahati -3.
  5. The Director of Technical Education,
    Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati - 19.
  6. Girls' Polytechnic, Guwahati,
    represented by its Principal,
    Guwahati - 21.
 
 
By Advocates : Mr. B.D. Goswami for
Respondent No.1
Miss D. Das
Government Advocate, Assam
       
Dates of Hearing : 30-3-1999, 31-3-1999 & 1-4-1999
     
Date of Judgement : 12-5-1999
JUDGEMENT AND ORDERS
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. -

This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 22-2-96 passed by the learned single judge in Civil Rule No.2148/92 by which it has been directed that the authorities shall not use the name, style and designation of Architect in respect of respondent Nos. 9 to 34 in the Writ petition (appellants in this appeal). The appellants who were appointed as Architectural Draftsman were redesignated by means of the impugned order dated January 20, 1988 as Junior Architect which was challenged by the Respondent No.1, namely, Association of Architects, Assam, by filing the above noted Civil Rule.

  1. We have heard the learned counsel Shri B.K. Das for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

  2. Assam which is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is averred that its members are qualified and registered Architects under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972. Some of them are private professionals and others are employed including in the P.W.D., Assam. The present appellants were appointed by different orders passed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. as Architectural Draftsman. Order dated January 20, 1988 was issued by the Government of Assam saying that in the interest of public service the Governor of Assam was pleased to redesignate the post of Architectural Draftsman, P.W.D. as Junior Architect with immediate effect. This redesignation has been objected to by the Association of Architects, Assam on the ground that the appellants have undergone three years' Diploma course in Architectural Assistantship from the Girls' Polytechnic which is neither recognised by the Central Government nor the Council of Architecture. They are also not registered as Architect as provided under Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act, 1972?). Therefore, designation of Architects or Junior Architect cannot be bestowed upon them. It violates the provisions of the Act, 1972. It was also the case of the petitioner association that the appellants were being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Architect in the Public Works Department from the post of Junior Architect in the similar manner as provided for the Diploma holder Junior Engineers in the P.W.D. who are promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and so on. The case of the petitioner further is that under the Service Rules in the P.W.D there is no post of Junior Architect. Hence the process of consideration of promotion of the appellants as Assistant Architect was bad in law and prayer was made that the Government may be restrained from proceeding further in the matter. Various provisions of the Act, 1972 have been placed before us.

  3. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 defines the word "architect" to mean a person whose name is entered in the register. Section 14 of the Act, 1972 provides for recognition of qualifications granted by the authorities and it provides that qualifications included in the schedule or notified under Section 15 shall be recognised qualifications for the purpose of the Act. As indicated earlier, according to the petitioner-respondent, three years' diploma in Architectural Assistantship given by the Girls' Polytechnic, Assam is not a recognised qualification in terms of Section 14. A reference has also been made to Section 21 of the Act, 1972 which provides that the Council may prescribe the minimum standard of architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by colleges or institutions in India. Section 22 of the Act, 1972 provides for regulation of professional conduct of the Architects by the Council of Architecture. Section 23 provides for preparation and maintenance of register of architects. Section 25 provides for qualification for entering in the register and says that a person shall be entitled on payment of prescribed fee for his name to be entered in the register if he carries on his profession of architect in India and holds a recognised qualification, or in case he does not hold such a qualification but being an Indian citizen, has been engaged in practice as an architect for a period of not less than five years prior to the date appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 24. Section 35 provides for some preference to be given to the registered architects in the matter of employments in the Government and local bodies and institutions. The relevant provisions contained in Section 37 which prohibits the use of title of " architects" reads as under
                             "37. Prohibition against use of title - (1) After the expiry of one year from the date    appointed under sub-section (2) of section 24, no person other than a registered architect, or a firm of             architects shall use the title and style of architect:

    Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to -

    (a)     practice of the profession of an architect by a person designated as a landscape architect' or 'naval architect'

    (b)    a person who, carrying on the profession of an architect in any country outside India, undertakes the function as a consultant or designer in India for a specific project with the prior permission of the Central Government.

    Explanation -For the purposes of clause (a) -

    (i)    'landscape architect' means a person who deals with the design of open spaces relating to plants, trees and landscape;

    (ii)    'Naval architect' means an architect who deals with design and construction of ships.

    (2)    If any person contravenes the provisions of sub-section(1), he shall be punishable on first conviction with fine - which may extend to five hundred rupees and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both."


  4. The learned Single Judge by means of the impugned judgment disposed of the writ petition holding that the Government cannot use the title of Architect in respect of persons who are not qualified and registered under the Act. It was further provided that promotion may be given to those persons in due course, but not with the name and style of Architects and that the service condition of the appellants may not be changed.

  5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the provisions contained in the Architects Act, 1972 would not be applicable in the case of those who are in the Government employment. There is no denial of the fact that the names of the appellants are not registered in the register of Architects as provided under sections 24 and 25 of the Act. There is also no denial of the fact that the qualifications as held by the appellants, namely, three years diploma course from the Girls' Polytechnic, Assam, is not recognised qualification under Section 14 of the Act having not included in the schedule. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows : " 14. Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in India. (1) The qualifications included in the Schedule or notified under section 15 shall be recognised qualifications for the purpose of this Act.

    (2)      Any authority in India which grants an architectural qualification not included in the Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consultation with the Council, may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the Schedule against such architectural qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised qualification only when granted after a specified date:

    Provided that until the first Council is constituted, the Central Government shall, before issuing any notification as aforesaid, consult an expert committee consisting of three members to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette."

  6. Section 15 provides for recognition of qualification granted by any university or other institution in any country outside India. It appears that the Girls' Polytechnic granting three years' diploma to the appellants has not applied to the Central Government for its inclusion in the schedule. In any case, it is nobody's case that it finds place in the schedule. According to the definition of the word "architect" it means a person whose name is entered in the register. Register of architects is maintained under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Thus from the provisions indicated above, it is quite clear that the qualification which is held by the appellants is not recognised qualification in terms of Section 14 of the Act and the appellants are also not entered in the register of architects. On behalf of the appellants, however, it is indicated that the qualification held by the appellants is recognised by the State Council of Technical Education and the Girls' Polytechnic is recognised by All India Council For Technical Education. It may be correct, but the question is whether it meets the requirement of the provisions of Architects Act, or not. In case it does not meet the requirement of the provisions of the Act, one may not be entitled to use the title of designation of 'Architect'. A clear prohibition is also contained under section 37 of the Act.

  7. We may now consider the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the Architects Act, 1972 would not be applicable to the architects working in the Government Department. In this connection learned counsel has drawn our attention to the statement of objects and reasons of the Architects Act, 1972. According to the said statement, since the building activity had increased manifold all around, namely, multi-storeyed office building, factory building, residential houses, etc., minimum qualified persons calling themselves as Architects have been undertaking the construction of building which are uneconomical and not safe. Thus with a view to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as Architects a statutory regulation would be necessary. The statement of objects and reasons also says that with the passing of the legislation it would be unlawful for any person to designate himself as 'architect' unless he has the requisite qualification and is registered under the Act. Thereafter the main features of the Bill are indicated in the statement of objects and reasons. The feature at serial No.4 has been particularly placed before us which stipulates that after expiry of two years from the date of the Act coming into force, a registered architect shall get preference for appointment as an architect under the Central or State Government or any other local body. From this feature it is tried to be shown that there is clear bifurcation of those carrying on private profession and those who may be provided Government employment. Those who get Government employment, they would be governed by the conditions of service of the Government department and not by the provisions of the Act, whereas the private professionals whose conduct is sought to be chanalised and mal practices are sought to be checked, they will be governed by the provisions of the Act. To lay a further emphasis on this aspect of the matter learned counsel for the appellants has urged that so far Government employees are concerned, their conduct is controlled and governed by the rules of the Government service. In case they commit any gross negligence or any other misconduct they can well be dealt with under the Rules applicable to the Government employees, but private professionals would not be controlled by any provisions except as contained in the architects act, 1972. It is thus submitted that the purpose of enacting the Architects Act, 1972 was only to have control over the private professionals.

  8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to section 23 of the Act which provides for preparation and maintenance of register of architects. One of the information prescribed to be recorded in the register is indicated in clause (d) of sub-section (3) is the "professional address?. It provides as follows:

    "(3)      The register shall include the following particulars, namely:-

               (a)     .................

              (b)     .................

              (c)     .................

              (d)     his professional address; and .................."

    Form 2 as prescribed under the Rules requiring similar information has also been pressed into service to infer that the register is maintained only for the professionals. It may be indicated that clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 23 further provides that such further particulars are also to be mentioned as prescribed by the rules. It is difficult to infer from the above noted provisions that the provisions of the Act apply only to the private professionals.

  9. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited before us a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 353 (Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate) where it has held that in case of doubt about the meaning of a word of a statute it is to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view. The meaning need not be strictly in accordance with the grammatical or etymological propriety of language nor its popular use, but the object which is sought to be attained has to be kept in mind. On the basis of this decision it is submitted that the objects of enacting Architects Act, 1972 was to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as architects. Such unqualified persons work in a manner which is unsafe and uneconomical and they also bring the profession of architect to disrepute. With this end in view the enactment was made. The submission is that the Government does not need any such protection. It is not included in the general public. Hence the provisions of the Act are to be interpreted in the manner that they serve the object and purpose of the Act for which it is enacted rather than to have in its sweep the Government employees also who remain under the control of the Government and are bound by the Government rules and are answerable to it.

  10. On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed upon a decision reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 223 (Om Prakash Mittal v. Council of Architecture and others) in which the validity of the provisions of the Architects Act including Section 37 has been upheld. We hardly find that this decision is of any help on the point involved in the present case. The vires of the Act is not under challenge.

  11. It is no doubt that the argument as advanced on behalf of the appellants is attractive, but it hardly appeals us. It is true, looking to the sudden spurt in the activity of building constructed for factories, industries, housing colonies, office complexes, etc. it was considered that the profession of architecture must be regulated. Only those who have proper education and training and are qualified to work as such may alone be permitted to work as architects. It is a legislation especially dealing with the architects. Meaning of the word 'architect' has been statutorily provided under clause (a) of Section 2 where it has been provided that it means one whose name is entered in the register. A register of architects is prepared and maintained as indicated earlier under the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Section 25 provides that a person shall be entitled to be entered in the register who holds a recognised qualification.so far recognised qualification is concerned, it is one which is included in the Schedule under Section 14 of the Act. Any authority which grants an architectural qualification has a right to apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised. The Central Government in turn after consulting the Council of Architecture may by a notification in the official gazette, recognise the qualification and include the same by amending the schedule including the qualification. The authority who imparts architectural education has to maintain certain standard in the educational training failing which the recognition is liable to be withdrawn. Therefore, such institutions have to maintain the standards of examination and provide staff, equipment training and other facilities so that the candidates undergo courses of study and examination and acquire proficiency up to the standard as prescribed by Section 20 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides that the Council of Architecture may prescribe the minimum standards of architectural education. Professional conduct is also subject to the regulations framed by the Council. The Council of Architecture, under Section 30 of the Act, is empowered to punish an architect if found guilty of misconduct, may suspend him from practice as an architect or remove his name from the register. Conduct of an architect is effectively controlled by Section 30. As a Government servant one may be punished under the Government rules, but still he may practise the profession of architecture. But check is placed by Section 30 under which the name of an architect is even liable to be removed from the register disentitling him to practise. Therefore, the argument that being in Government service an architect is accountable to his employer according to the rules does not hold good since mere punishment as a Government employee may not be enough to debar him from practising as an architect which is only controlled under Sections 22, 29 and 30 of the Act. The purpose of the Act, therefore, is not only to protect the individuals from unqualified or underqualified persons professing themselves to be Architects but also to regulate the standard of professional education so that they must attain the minimum proficiency and standards required for working as Architects. The standards of professional education set as well as the quality of the institutes imparting education in architecture as well as standards of examination as provided under sections 18 to 21 are necessary to achieve desired standards of an Architect which is necessarily required for all alike - may be private profession or in Government employment. In this view of the matter, prohibition as contained under Section 37 of the Act against use of title and style of Architect except by a registered Architect fulfils the reasons and objects for which the Act is enacted.

  12. Three years' diploma course in Architectural Assistantship held by the appellants may be recognised by All India Council for Technical Education and the State Council of Technical Education which may be good enough to get them some employment, but not as an Architect unless it is recognised by Council of Architecture in terms of Section 14 of the Act. It is not known as to whether the authorities concerned have ever applied to the Central Government for recognition of diploma in Architectural Assistantship under section 14 of the Act or not. It is also not even the case of the appellants that the standards of the three years diploma course of Girl's Polytechnic conforms to the standards of professional education as laid down by the Council of Architecture under the Act. Under the provisions of the Act only those who have recognised qualification would be entitled for being entered in the register of architect and the "architect" would mean one who is entered in the register of architects. In sequence of things prohibition is contained in Section 37 of the Act that no person other than a registered architect is entitled to use the title and style of architect.

  13. We do not think it is possible to draw any distinction, as vehemently canvassed before us, between the architects carrying on their private profession as such and the architects who may be in the employment of the Government or in the employment of any other statutory body or local authority or for that purpose any other establishment. The proficiency as required of one carrying on the job of architect is provided, controlled and maintained by the provisions of the Act. It would be difficult to equate three years' diploma course of Architectural Assistantship with the degree course of Architecture imparted according to the standards set under the Act. The same standard of efficiency is required, may be the building activities are carried on by the State or by private individual. In these circumstances the prohibition as contained in Section 37 of the Act cannot be confined only to the private professionals.

  14. It may also be pointed out here that proviso to Section 37 indicates as to which case Section 37 would not be applicable. It would not apply in case of a "landscape architect" and "naval architect" who deal in design of open space relating to plants and trees, etc. and in designing construction of ship respectively. Section 37 will also not apply to one who carries on profession outside India but has undertaken any specific project in India. Apart from the categories as indicated above, no other exception to the applicability of Section 37 has been provided much less on the ground that one is engaged in private profession or in Government employment.

  15. The appellants were appointed as Architectural Draftsman. Their designation was sought to be changed later on after they had joined the employment. In our view, the learned Single Judge committed no error in holding that change in the designation describing the appellants as Junior Architects was hit by Section 37 of the of the Act. We also feel that the learned Single Judge has rightly provided that while reverting back to the designation of the appellants to 'Architectural Draftsman' would not in any manner affect their chances of promotion as may be provided under the conditions of their services.

  16. In view of the discussions held above, we hardly find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

    No order as to costs.
Sd/-
P.G.Agarwal
Judge
Sd/-
Brijesh Kumar
Chief Judge
          
           
Seal
3/7/99
 
Go to top
In the High Court of judicature at Bombay


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE

Order passed by the High Court in the case of :

          Manoj Balkrishna Lad

          Aged                 :       20 years

           Occupation        :       Student

           Resident of        :        116A, Somwar Peth,
                                  Satara (M.S.), Pin Code 415 002
   .................Petitioner
           V/s
      
  1. State of Maharasthra
    Through
    Secretary
    Ministry of Higher and Technical Education
    Mantralaya
    Mumbai - 400 032

  2. Director of Technical Education
    3, Mahapalika Marg
    Fort
    Mumbai - 400 00
    (Copies of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to be served
    on Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay)

  3. Vice Chancellor
    University of Bombay
    Kalina, Santacruz (East)
    Mumbai


  4. Vice Chancellor
    University of Poona 
    Ganesh Khind 
    Pune

  5. All India Council for Technical
    Education
                   Through
    Regional Officer, Western Region
    2nd Floor, Industrial Assurance Building
    Veer Nariman Marg
    Mumbai - 40020
  6. Council of Architecture
    1st Floor, Core 6-A
    India Habitat Center
    Lodhi Road
    New Delhi-110003

 

..............RESPONDENTS
Arising out of :

Respondent No.2 and Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Universities not giving admission to the Petitioner to Second Year directly of Degree Course of Bachelor of Architecture in spite of he having passed the Diploma Course of Architecture Assistantship of three years.
    
Being Writ Petition No. 3798 of 2000, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying that :

(a)  to, grant rule and allow the Petition of Petitioner,

(b)  to, direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to give admission to Petitioner in 2nd Year of Degree Course of Bachelor of Architecture in Colleges imparting education in concerned faculty within their territional and academic jurisdiction during the pendency and final disposal of the present Writ Petition,

(c)  to, give ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (b) above,

(d)  to, direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to give admission to Petitioner in 2nd Year of Degree Course of Bachelor of Architecture in Colleges imparting education in concerned faculty within their territorial and academic jurisdiction,

(e)  to, grant costs of this Writ Petition against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and any other legal and equitable relief as deemed just and fit having regard to the facts involved in the case and circumstances attending the case.

Mr. P.B. Deo for petitioners

Mr. R.G. Ketkar for respondent No.1

Mr. S.K. Shinde AGP

Mr. Girish Kulkarni for respondent No. 4

        Coram : A.P. Shah & V.C. Daga J.J
        Date : 7-8-2000
P.C.

The short question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioners who have acquired diploma in Architecture Assistantship in first class from Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education are entitled for admission directly to 2nd year degree course of Bachelor of Architecture?

2.  The petitioners claim that they are eligible for direct admission to the 2nd year degree course of Bachelor of Architecture. They are relying upon the rules relating to direct admission to 2nd year degree course in engineering and technology which are annexed at Exhibit 1 to the petition. The petitioners are also relying upon the letter dated 25-8-1989 issued by the Officiating Registrar of Council of Architecture. According to the petitioners in a similar case the division bench has granted interim relief in writ petition no. 4808 of 1998.

3.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the affidavit filled by the Council of Architecture. At the outset it is required to be stated that the annexure I to the petition is not applicable to the case of discipline in question. A Bare perusal of annexure I makes it clear that the said eligibility criteria is applicable for direct admission to the second year degree courses in engineering and technology and not to Architecture. As far as the letter dated 25-8-1989 issued by the Officiating Registrar of the Council of Architecture is concerned it has been pointed out that when this letter was brought to the notice of the Council, the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 11.10.1999.

4.  It is also seen from the guidelines dated 15.6.1992 issued by the AICTE on 11.7.1992 that provisions of lateral entry for degree course are excluded as far as Architecture, Pharmacy and Arts etc. are concerned. This is clearly seen from the para 9 (2) of the guidelines. Minimum standards of Architectural Education Regulation 1983 issued by the Central Government also do not provide for lateral entry either for degree or diploma course in Architecture. Further regulation 3 (1) of the Regulations 1983 stipulates that Architecture course shall be of minimum duration of 5 academic years or 10 semester of approximately 16 working weeks each inclusive of six months/one semester of approximately 16 working weeks of practical training after the first stage in a professional office. Therefore even if the students got admission to the 2nd year degree course he is not entitled to register as Architecture under section 25 of the Architectures Act 1972. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to direct admission to the 2nd year degree course of Bachelor of Architecture.

5.  During the course of arguments a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners took admission to the diploma course in view of the letter dated 25.8.1989 from the Officiating Registrar of Council of Architecture and they were under the bonafide belief that they would be entitled to direct admission to the 2nd year degree course otherwise they would not have taken admission to the diploma course. Thus the petitioners had legitimate expectation that they would be give admission in 2nd year course and therefore it is not permissible for the respondents to deny admission to the petitioners. This plea is not even raised by the petitioners in the petition. In any event letter written by the Officiating Registrar cannot confer any such right on the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be admitted in the 2nd year degree course in violation of the rules and regulations.

Petition is dismissed.


         Sd/-
   Shri S.R. Achrekar
         13/10/2000
   For Additional Registrar

         True Copy

         Sd/-
   Assistant Registrar
      14-11-2000                                                                 SEAL
 
Go to top
In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

O.No. 18517/2000


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                Special Civil Application No. 1111 of 1999

            
  1. GIRISH MISTRY, CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
    B- 14, CHANSHYAM AVENUE,
    13, SATTAR TALUKA SOCIETY,
    OPP, GUJARAT HIGH COURT,
    AHMEDABAD 380 014    
...........Petitioner    
                       VERSUS    
       
  1. STATE OF GUJARAT
    SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.,
    SACHIVALAYA,
    GANDHINAGAR.

  2. CHAIRMAN, GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD
    HOUSING BOARD OFFICE
    NR, PRAGATINAGAR BUS STAND
    PRAGATINAGAR
    AHMEDABAD 380 013.

  3. SANDIP & PRERAK ASSOCIATES
    THROGH PARTNER ? SANJAY SHAH
    2, GROUND FLOOR, PRAJAL APPTT.,
    OPP. PRARTH EMPIRE,
    NEAR MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD 380 008

  4. VINOD TULJARAM LALWANI
    PARTNER, SANDIP & PRERAK ASSOCIATES,
    BUNGALOW OF MAHENDRABHAI, KARNAVATI SOCIETY
    BHAIRAVNATH RD., AHMEDABAD ?8.

  5. SANJAY SHARADCHANDRA SHAH
    PARTNER, SANDIP & PRERAK ASSOCIATES,
    "ASHIRVAD",
    GORDHANRAI TEKRO, KANKARIA
    AHMEDABAD.

  6. SANJAY SHARADCHANDRA SHAH                         H.U.F.
    THROUGH KARTA SANJAY SHARAD CHANDRA SHAH,
    PARTNER SANDIP & PRERAK ASSO., "ASHIRVAD"
    GORDHANRAI TEKRO, AHMEDABAD.

  7. COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE
    CHAIRMAN, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE
    CORE 6-A, FIRST FLOOR
    LODHI ROAD,
    NEW DELHI.
...........RESPONDENTS    
APPEARANCE ON RECORD    


MR BD KARIA for Petitioner No.1

GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
MRS. KETTY A MEHTA for Respondent No. 2
MR. BP MUNSHI for Respondent No. 3,5-6
MR. NIRALI B MUNSHI for Respondent No. 4
MR. MH RATHOD for Respondent No. 7

SCA/1111/1999 C.A.V. Judgement dated 20/6/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1111 of 1999
with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12021 OF 1999
with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1927 OF 2000
              For Approval and Signature:


Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DM DHARMADHIKARI;      Sd/-
and

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE B.C.PATEL;                 Sd/-  

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
YES
              
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? :   YES
              
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy         
        
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
: NO

   

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
GIRISH MISTRY,CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
  1. Special Civil Application No. 1111 of 1999 & Civil Application No. 1927 of 2000

    MR B.J. SHELAT FOR MR. BD KARIA for Petitioner
    MR S.K. PATEL, AGP, for Respondent No. 1
    MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Respondent No. 2
    MR B.P. TANNA for MR. BP MUNSHI for Respondent no. 3, 5 & 6
    MS NIRALI B MUNSHI for Respondent No. 4
    MR MH RATHOD for Respondent No. 7
    Civil Application No. 12021 of 1999

          MR A.K. CLERK for the applicant

         MR. B.D. KARIA for the Respondent
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : CHIEF JUSTICE MR DM DHARMADHIKARI
and
MR. JUSTICE B.C. PATEL

Date of decision: 20/06/2000                                   

           C.A.V. JUGEMENT (Per B.C. Patel, J)
          By way of this Public Interest Litigation the Petitioner, the Chairman of the Indian Institute of Architects, Gujarat Chapter, Ahmedabad, has moved this court for quashing and setting aside the agreement entered into between the respondent, Gujarat Housing Board and respondent No. 3 Sandip & Prerak Associates claiming to be the reputed Architectural Consultancy Firm.

2.      Short facts which are relevant to dispose of this petition are as under:

3       The Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Architects Act?) has been enacted by the Parliament which provides for Council of Architects, President and Vice-President of Council, Finances of Council, Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in India, Recognition of architectural qualifications granted by authorities in foreign countries, effect of recognition, Minimum standard of architectural education and Professional conduct etc.  Chapter III refers to Registration of Architects. Chapter III provides for preparation and maintenance of register, qualification for entry in register, procedure for subsequent registration, removal from register, procedure in inquiries relating to miscouduct, effect of registration. In chapter IV provisions are made including that of prohibition against use of title and cognizance of an offence.

4.       According to the Architects Act, as architect is a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register.  Person possessing minimum standard of architectural education required for granting qualifications by Institutions in the India can be enrolled as an architect in the register maintained under the Act.  It is for the Council to prescribe minimum standard of architectural education.  Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibits use of title unless he is a registered architect.  Section 37 of the Architects Act being relevant is reproduced hereunder :-

        "Prohibition against use of title ? (1) After the expiry of one year from the date appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 24. No person other than a registered architect, or a firm of architects shall use the title and style of architect:
         
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to :
   
(a)           Practice of the profession of an architect by a person designated as a "landscape architect" or "naval architect";
   
(b)           a person who, carrying on the profession of an architect in any country outside India, undertakes the function as a consultant or designer in India for a specific project with the prior permission of the Central Government.
   
Explanation ? for the purposes of clause (a) -
   
(i)           "Landscape architect" means a person who deal with the design of open spaces relating to plants, trees and landscape;

(ii)            "Naval architect" means an architect who deals with design and construction of ships.

(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable on first conviction with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both."

5.       From the aforesaid provisions it is clear that a firm of architects can use title if all the partners are architects and not otherwise.  For a firm which is introducing itself as a firm of architects, all its partners must be architects under the Act.  If a person is not a architect, he cannot be introduced as a partner to the firm of architects and such person cannot be introduced as an architect. Like the legal profession, medical profession and Chartered Accountants, for the architects, Architects Act prescribes qualification, entry of name in the register, removal of name from the register and procedure in inquiries relating to misconduct. The legislature considering the fact that the architects are engaged in profession and not in business, has enacted the Architects Act with a view to maintain standards of architects and to protect the dignity of architects.  The petitioner in the capacity as the Chairman of Gujarat Chapter of Indian Institute of Architects, submitted that the national body of Architectural professionals has 15000 members while the Gujarat Chapter of Indian Institute of Architects has about 600 members.  He being interested to uphold and maintain standards and status of practising Architects in Gujarat in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, has thought it fit to file the petition and to point out the illegalities and gross irregularities committed by the respondents.
6.        Respondent No. 2 is the Chairman of the Gujarat Housing Board which is duly constituted under the provisions contained in Gujarat Housing Board Act.  1961 and the Board took a decision to appoint private architects for its project at Gotha Housing Township worth Rs. 230 crores in 43 hectors of land at Gotha village, touching the border of Ahmedabad.  It is averred in the petition that the decision to appoint private architects was taken by the Housing Board and to pay Consultancy charges of about Rs. 10 crores to respondent Nos. 3 to 6.



7.        Respondent No. 3 is a partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Sandip & Prerak Associates which has its office at Prajal Apartments, opp.Prarth Empire, Near Maninagar Police Station, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The said firm has three partners, namely, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.Respondent no 4 V.T. Lalwani, is an architect, whose name appears in the register of the Architects.Respondent No. 5 is an Engineer having a diploma in Engineering while respondent No.6 is HUF of respondent No.5. Respondent No. 5 is a karta of the said HUF.It is pointed out in the petition that respondent No. 4 V.T. Lalwani?s share in the firm is 2% and the HUF of Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah?s share is 70%. An agreement was executed by and between partners respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of respondent No. 3, a parternship firm, on 1.4.1997.Clause (3) of the agreement refers to the object of the firm. Reading the same it appears that respondent No. 3 is to be considered as a sister/secondary concern of M/s. Sanjay Shah and Associates. Respondent No. 3 shall carry out the business of Architectural, Civil, Engineering, Planning and Designing etc.of Government, Semi Government, Public Sector or Private Trust or Private Properties.It will purchase the land, orgnize it and construct, houses for sale.Over and above this, if any other business is required to be carried out with the consent of the partners, the same shall be carried out.  In clause (7) there is a reference to working partners and the amounts to be paid as per book profits in accordance with Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Respondent No. 4 is referred as working partner who is closely associated with Sanjay Shah and Associates and he has a registration certificate issued by the Indian Institute of Architects bearing registration No. C/A 15657.For the purpose of license/identification, registration number of architect is required. The said registration certificate and its registration number shall be used as authorised registered number. Thus, for the purpose of identification, registration and use of the registration number of respondent No. 4 is considered as legitimate registered number of the firm and respondent No. 4 has agreed to allow the use of such number in favour of the partnership firm.

8.        So far as the work is concerned, it is clear that only other partners were authorised to deal.It is only that Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah was authorised to present the bills, to receive payment, to appoint advisers,to prepare, accept and finalise details of the plans, to take a decision, to enter into an agreement, to offer or to accept or reject offer, to give public advertisement, to appoint staff or to cancel appointment of the staff, to appoint contractor, to accept bills, to finalise bills and to take a decision in this behalf and to do all other act for carrying out the object of the firm.Respondent No. 5, Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah was authorised to deal on behalf of the firm.Reading the agreement, it clearly appears that respondent No. 4 V.T. Lalawani was not required to do anything except to permit the use of his registration number by getting 2% of the book profits of the firm.

9.        Clause (10) of the agreement indicates that all accounts shall be operated only by Sanjay or Sharadchandra Rajnikant Shah.

10.        Clause (16) of the agreement refers to the service of registered architect Harishbhai C. Parikh who is rendering his service since 1984.In case of need to experts? services, clause (16) of the agreement is required to be referred.It is specifically stated that services of registered Architect Harishbhai C.Parikh are availed of by the firm as well as sister concern since 1984.Registration number of the said architect is used wherever and whenever required with his consent for which agreement is also executed.Thus services of respondent No. 4 were only for a limited purpose of using his registration number and no further.Thus, it is clear that the agreement is sham agreement executed only with a view to use the name of respondent No. 4 as architect and to introduce the firm as firm of architects.

11.        On 5.2.1998 all the partners of the firm executed Power of Attorney in favour of Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah and thus on behalf of firm, respondent No. 5 was required to sign.On 5.2.1998 as agreement was executed between respondent No. 3 and 4 in connection with Gujarat Housing Board, Gotha Township. In that document respondent No. 4, authorised partnership firm to use his registration number and licence wherever and whenever is required and the same shall be considered as a registration number and licence in favour of the partnership firm.The partnership firm was registered on 13.2.1998 with the Registrar of firms, Ahmedabad City.The petitioner has placed on record all the documents which are referred to hereinabove.

12.        Gujarat Housing Board published an advertisement in English daily of Western Times (evening circulation only) dated 18.1.1997 inviting applications for empanelment of architectural consultants. This newspaper has only evening edition.The last date for ollecting application forms was fixed as 29.1.1997 while the last date for submitting application forms was fixed as 5.2.1997.The advertisement which is placed on record, if read, it becomes clear that the Housing Board invited applications for pre-qualifications to appoint panel of Architectural Consultancy Firm for its project.It invited applications from reputed architectural consultancy firms interested for pre-qualification.It appears that five applications were received by the Board and marks were awarded as indicated in para 7 of the petition.Respondent No. 3 firm was given third rank (56 marks) on the basis of assessments. The petitioner has obtained comparative statement for pre-qualification of Architects Firms which is placed on record at Annexure-C.It is pointed out in the petition that respondent No. 3 firm made a tall claim of practising as architects since 10 years in its application while in fact, respondent No. 3 firm commenced its business on 18.1.1997 which fact cannot be denied.In assessing and evaluating status of the applicant firm, marks were to be assigned at the rate of one mark in term of each year of practice subject to maximum of 10 marks.Respondent No. 3 has been given 10 marks as per its claim of practice for 10 years.On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that this is utterly incorrect and misleading.It is clear that the firm came into existence only in 1997 and therefore was not entitled to have the credit of 10 marks at the rate of one mark per year.It is suggested that the respondent Board has connived at this glaring lapse with a view to favour the respondent No. 3 firm and its partners.



13.       As indicated in earlier part of the judgment that out of the three partners only respondent No. 4 Mr. V.T. Lalwani, partner of respondent
No. 3, is an architect.As per the public advertisement, applications were invited latest by 5.2.1997.An agreement that respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 executed on 1.4.1997, is much later than the date on which application was submitted pursuant to the advertisement of the respondent Board dated 18.1.1997.Surprisingly, respondents have come out with a case that they commenced business on 18.1.1997, the date on which advertisement appeared in the newspaper.It is thus pointed out that the marks given by the respondent Board are incorrect and are given only with a view to favour respondent No. 3.The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition in para 11 that as per the provisions of Section 2(a) to 2(e) and Section 35 and Section 37 of the Architects Act, there cannot be a partnership between an architect and non-architect.It is further submitted by the petitioner that the firm having all the partners who are architects can introduce the firm as an architectural firm or architectural consultant.If one of the partners of the firm is not an architect, the firm cannot be introduced as an architectural consutancy firm or cannot be appointed as an architectural firm.Section 45 of the Architects Act permits the Council with the approval of the Central Government to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder to carry out the purpose of this Act.Section 44 of the Architects Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules.The Rules made under this section is to be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament. Reading this section it clearly appears that the consent of each House of Parliament is required.There is rule making power and the Central government has made regulations known as Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989  which prescribes that all partners in a firm of architects should be registered architects.It is submitted before us that respondent No. 5 being a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and not an architect, the firm cannot be said to have been constituted by architects and thus not in accordance with law.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 are hand in glove to share consultancy fees of Rs. 10 crores to be paid by the respondent Board.

14.       The respondent Housing Board has its own architectural department and is having about 200 qualified Engineers and architect personnels from the level of Chief Engineer to Junior Engineer.It is specifically averred in the petition that despite this huge infrastructure, having experienced and qualified Engineers and Architects who have prepared the master plan and design for Gotha Housing Township, the respondent Board has appointed the respondent No. 3 firm only to siphon the funds of Gujarat Housing Board illegally.

15.       On behalf of respondent Housing Board an affidavit is filed by one Patel Ramanlal Bhulabhai.In the title of the affidavit or in the operative part of the affidavit we do not find the status of deponent and therefore it is difficult for us to state in what capacity he has filed the affidavit.The Housing Board has come out with a case that the members of the Indian Institute of Architects are interested persons and have invoked the jurisdiction of this court to decide the disputed questions of facts.

16.       With regard to the advertisement given in Western Times dated 18.1.1997 the Housing Board has come out with an explanation that the Housing Board is expected to send the information to the District Information Officer of the Government of Gujarat and it is for him to decide as to in which newspaper the advertisement should be published.It is submitted that thus the Housing Board has no control over the said department regarding giving of the advertisement in a particular newspaper.It is specifically averred in para 7 of the affidavit that "I say that referring to the advertisement, it is clear that there was no intention of the Gujarat Housing Board to give consultancy of township i.e. Gotha Oganaj to respondent Nos. 3 to 6.In fact, the advertisement makes it clear that it was intended to create a general panel of architects consultancy firm in Ahmedabed, Baroda and Rajkot circles separately."The Housing Board has further stated in the affidavit that the Board had not decided to give advertisement in a particular newspaper and it had not advertised for giving consultancy to private architects for its particular township of Gotha-Oganaj.

17.       With regard to the firm, in para 8 of the affidavit the Housing Board has come out with a version that respondent No. 3 firm is a sister concern of M/s.Sanjay Shah & Associates and that the partners of the firm are the partners of the said firm.It is further stated in the affidavit that M/s.Sanjay & Associates was working as Architects and Engineers.It is further averred in the affidavit by the deponent that respondent No.3 firm was formed in 1997 with the intention to provide the architectural services to the Government and in view of this fact 10 marks were awarded to respondent No. 3 considering the experience of M/s. Sanjay Shah & Associates.Deponent of the affidavit has not placed on record any material to indicate the work entrusted to M/s. Sanjay Shah and Associates, working as Architects and Engineers or no documentary evidence is placed on record for that firm to indicate its existence etc.Thus, wrong excuse is given for awarding them 10 marks.In para 9 of the affidavit the Housing Board has given details about the work so as to justify that the work is required to be done by an Architect and Engineer.From the contents of para 9 it appears that the board is trying to suggest that majority of the work was required to be done by an Engineer and not by an Architect and work was not within the scope of the firm managed by architects alone and thus has tried to justify the inclusion of name of respondent No. 3 in the panel of architects.

18.       Respondent Board in para 13 of the affidavit has suggested that the Housing Board has awarded consultancy services to the firm and not to the individual partners.The Board is of the opinion that if the firm is having a registered architect as a partner it complies with the guidelines.The Board has denied that it had 2000 qualified Engineers and Architects from the level of Chief Engineer to the level of Junior Engineers  It is averred that in fact the Board has strength of 180 qualified engineers and architects.From the affidavit it appears that incorrect figure of "2000" qualified engineers was referred and therefore the Board has denied the same but has admitted about staff of 180 persons as stated hereinabove.In the affidavit it is admitted that the Board has technical staff who are trained and experienced in planning, supervision etc.in conformity with the Government rules and regulations.However, it is stated that the staff is not in touch with the prevailing trends of the market. Thus, the officer of the respondent Board is conveying that the officers of the respondent Board are not upto date with the day-to-day management and research in the Engineering or housing sector.The Board has justified its action by stating that to develop the Township with modern concept of living, it has decided vide its Resolution No. 209/97 dated 27.6.1997 to avail of the services of private architectural consultancy.

19.       We have perused the affidavit placed on record by respondent No. 7, Council of Architects, affidavit in rejoinder on behalf on the petitioner and the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3,5 and 6.It was submitted before us that in the architectural firm it is not necessary that all the partners must be architects.It was submitted before us that huge work is entrusted to respondent No. 3 and interference by this court at this stage would stall the work which is in progress.It was submitted before us that the scheme will be completed within a short period.A statement showing progress of different schemes of Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad, in township Gotha-Oganaj is placed before us.So far as residential development of 205 LIG T/S and 196 MIG T/S is concerned it was submitted that the work has been completed.With regard to other work in progress we have perused the details.So far as these two schemes are concerned, planning was undertaken by Gujarat Housing Board which is clear from the remarks column.So far as the other types of work is concerned, the statement makes it clear that except 401 houses referred to hereinabove, nothing is completed. Out of 5629 residential houses except 401 houses, one entrance gate and one amenity (out of 16), no construction work is carried out.So far as the infrastructure development is concerned, no roads are constructed.For 1583 houses tenders are only finalised. For 586 houses tenders are under finalisation and for 1668 houses tenders are not invited.It appears that for about 1111 tenements there is some progress but what is the stage of construction is not placed on record.Whether digging of the ground is completed for construction or whether plinth area is completed or what type of work has been carried out has not been stated.Thus, except 401 houses not a single house is ready.

20.       An application was submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Clerk being Civil application No. 12021 of 1999 on behalf of Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association through its President for joining as a party but after some hearing it was stated that if the application is to be allowed then the respondents would like to file reply and thus wanted to delay the hearing of the matter.Even otherwise, in our opinion, it is not necessary to entertain the application as the court can decide the matter in absence of applicants of Civil Application No. 12021 of 1999. The applicants are not likely to be adversely affected.No relief is sought against the applicants.Hence this Civil Application is rejected.

21.       The dispute between the petitioner and the Housing Board is required to be decided, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.One will also have to consider the contents of the advertisement and the extent of the circulation and the type of publication.On the basis of the advertisement and the extent of the circulation etc., can it be said that all the firms, association of persons, association of architects were deprived of submitting applications and by short circulation, people were not duly informed?

22.       Reading the advertisement at Annexure - A, copy of which is at page 113 at Annexure-B (collectively) filed by respondent No. 2, it is clear that the Housing Board was intending to invite applications from Reputed Architectural Consultancy Firms, and for the purpose of pre-qualification for architectural consultancy services with a view to appoint panels of Architectural Consultancy Firms, advertisement was given.Obviously, in view of the words used in the advertisement "Architectural Consultancy Firms" a person reading the advertisement would consider that an application can be submitted only by a firm of architects and not by a firm or association of persons of which one is not an architect as defined in Architects Act.In view of this advertisement, persons similarly situated like respondent No. 3 were obviously deprived of making application.When the Board is taking a decision, it was the duty of the Board to give publicity correctly.If it wanted to have only Architectural Consultancy Firms then it should have used the words as are used in the advertisement. After filing the petition respondent Board has come out with a version that the nature of work was such which could not be carried out by the architects alone.If that was the opinion of the Board at the time of issuing the advertisement, the Board could have said it clearly that the firms or association of persons of which one partner of the firm need not be an architect can apply and architects, with engineers as the partners, even diploma holders, can apply for the pre-qualification of services.Fact that the words 'Architectural Consultancy Firms' indicate that all the partners of the firm must be architects.It is clear that the Board is managed by the persons having qualifications in various branches.They have their own Law Officers.The Board is aware about the distinction between Architects and Engineers.The Board has employed in its services Engineers and Architects and therefore it was known to the Board the clear distinction between Architects and Engineers.Qualifications for Architects are prescribed in the Schedule of the Architects Act.Reading the Schedule it is clear that even a person not engaged in housing activities would know the distinction between Architects and Engineers.Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention raised by the Board.The Board could have accepted applications on behalf of firms of architects alone.Thus, on the material aspect the Board has committed a serious error in accepting the application of respondent No. 3 a firm of an architect and an Engineer as an application submitted by a firm of Architects.

23.       It is also required to be noted that looking to the agreement executed by and between the partners which has been discussed in detail in earlier part of the judgement and the power of attorney executed in favour of the firm by respondent No. 4, it is clear that the services of the architect as such were never solicited by the firm. The fact that agreement came to be executed between respondent No. 4 and 3 permitting the use of registration number and licence wherever and whenever required and under the agreement of partnership, the bank accounts were to be operated only by the respondent No. 5 and one Sharadchandra Rajnikant Shah.It clearly appears that respondent No. 4 had to play no role in carrying out day-to-day activities of the firm.The aforesaid aspect is strengthened by the fact that the document of partnership refers that the respondent No. 4 has to permit the use of his registration number and licence as if it is the number of the partnership firm and the licence of the partnership firm and that all types of transactions were required to be entertained by Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah, respondent No. 5. Thus, the name of respondent No. 4 was used merely for the purpose of constituting a firm for the purpose of introducing the firm as the firm of architects.Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit has stated that he had been actively involved in diligently rendering complete and comprehensive architectural services for development of the entire Township project of respondent no. 2 Board at village Gotha near Ahmedabad.No material is placed for the said purpose.The documents i.e. partnership deed and documents placed on record refer contrary to that.In his affidavit he has referred having his association with Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah and Associates, the firm which is providing technical consultancy in practice of Architecture, Engineering & Interior designs.He has stated that he is an active professional since 1984 with respondent No. 5. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be stated that the firm of architects can only have architects as its partners.However, it is open for an architect and an engineer to enter into an agreement of partnership and to carry on business but certainly such firm cannot introduce itself as the firm of architects or architectural consultancy firm.Respondent No. 4 has kept mum about the work to be carried out specifically by him.All aforesaid circumstances go to strengthen the say of the petitioner.

24.       What was the necessity for the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 to enter into an agreement on 1.4.97 for having commenced business on 18.1.1997?The partnership deed is silent about the intention of the partners to carry on business as architectural consultancy firm.If that was so they would have referred in agreement itself.Therefore, it appears that after submitting an application, documents might have been executed later i.e. on 1.4.1997.Respondents ought to have placed on record details of application indicating the fact that three partners were partners of the firm and were applying in response to the advertisement.It appears that as and when necessity arose agreements were executed.Power of attorney is executed on 5.2.1998 by respondent No. 4 authorising Sanjay Sharadchandra Shah to act on behalf partnership firm and on the same date an agreement has been executed authorising the partnership firm to use his registration number and licence whenever and wherever required.It is also interesting to note that the firm is registered with the Registrar of Firms thereafter on 13.2.1998.There is an agreement between the Executive Engineer, Housing Division of Gujarat Housing Board and respondent No. 5. This clearly reveals that after this agreement, a further agreement between the partners of the firm has been executed so as to exclude respondent No. 4 from acting on behalf of the firm and authorising respondent No. 5 to act on behalf of the firm.Thus, it is clear that there was no firm in existence on the day on which advertisement appeared or the firm has not carried out any work prior thereto.There is nothing to indicate what type of work has been carried out by the firm.Therefore, also the marks awarded to respondent No. 3 firm are awarded arbitrarily in empaneling respondent No. 3 in the panel as Architectural Consultancy Firms.

25.       So far as the publicity is concerned, the project for constructing housing was required to be undertaken by three Circles, namely, Ahmedabad, Baroda and Rajkot.The scheme in question involves huge amount.For one project, consultancy fees of Rs. 10 crores are to be paid.This Figure indicates the nature of the work.The total houses, under the scheme for which respondent No. 3 is appointed, required to be constructed are 5629 houses in large area of land situated on the border of Ahmedabad city.This is not the only scheme.For the purpose of preparing panel for carrying out huge work, it was the duty of the respondent Housing Board to see that there is proper advertisement.

26.       The advertisement at Annexure-A as well as at Annexure-B collectively suggest for preparation of a panel of Architectural Consultancy Firms.No details about the projects to be undertaken or cost of projects to be undertaken are given.Advertisement nowhere refers the nature of work to be carried out with the help of an Engineer.Thus, an architect, reading the advertisement would be under an impression that the architect whose name will be empaneled will be required to carry out the work as an architect only.It is to be remembered that the nature of work to be performed by an architect and by an engineer is different though there may be overlapping.Grolier Electronic Publishing has published notes with regard to architects, architecture, modern architecture, civil engineering.Architecture is probably the oldest of the fine arts.In this country as well as in Western countries, even today, there are number of buildings constructed before several years.In medieval illuminated manuscripts, God was frequently shown armed with compass and mason?s square, as an Architect of the Universe.History of significant buildings, castles, cathedrals, palaces, temples and manor institutional monuments shows what is the architecture.

27.       Well-known authors while describing architecture have taken care after. Scrutinising the nature of work performed by architects in the past and in the present.The sum and substance with regard to architecture can be said in four ways; all valid, all interrelated.It is the art and method of erecting structures; it is a planned entity, the result of a conscious act; it is a body or corpus of work; it is a way to build.A good definition was provided by Roman architect VITRUVIUS in the 1st century AD and later on translated from Latin into English during the 17th century by Sir Henry Wotton.The definition recognizes that architecture embraces functional, technological and aesthetic requirements; it must have commodities (utilitarian qualities), firmness (structural stability and sound construction) and delighte (attractive appearance).

28.       The name of architects first began to be known in Italy during the RENAISSANCE in the 15TH and 16TH centuries.The idea of a professional architect with formal training and academic qualification is a product of the 19th century.In 1819 architecture courses were instituted at the ECOLE DES BEAUX ARTS (School of Fine Arts) in Paris; and thereafter in various universities in different years.The said art has retained to some extent its local requirements.Contemporary architects and scholars emphasize the influences of technology on the development of buildings.The use of iron and steel beams and columns released the wall from its traditional load bearing function and allowed architects to incorporate enormous windows and wide, open-plan floors, two of the most significant characteristics of modern architecture. No large modern building, however, would be practicable without the parallel development of elevators, central heating and ventilation systems, and electric lighting devices. Today, the system has further added the use of electronic devices with includes computers, video cameras and communication network.

29.       Architects considering the requirements of the time and need of people have to plan from townships to cities or big complexes such as commercial and residential.They have to bear in mind different requirement of the people in a country.Architects are also required to keep in mind the most important aspect which is known as 'cost factor'.So far as the Civil Engineers are concerned, ordinarily they are engaged in designing and constructing major structures and facilities bridges, dams, tunnels, tall buildings, factories, highways, airports, railroads, and so on.There is a significant contribution by this branch also and has glorified by creation of sanitary system to reduce disease and improve the environment.Transportation is one branch and it has divisions such as highway, bridge and traffic engineering.Another branch known as structural engineering has to concentrate on the design of bridges and large buildings.Structural engineer may cooperate with an architect, who concentrates on the aesthetic and functional aspects of design while the engineer is concerned with materials, methods of construction and other technical requirements.The present day sanitary engineer is concerned with water supply and sewerage systems for collecting and processing human wastes.Some Civil Engineers manage the construction of other engineers' designs, concerning themselves with the scheduling and coordinating phases of construction and inspection to assure adherence to specifications.Considering various aspects it is clear that the function of Architects and Civil Engineer cannot be the same.To some extent, the work might be appearing to be overlapping.The Engineer may carry out the work of erecting a building as per the design prepared by the architect.Architect may require supervision of the work carried out by the Engineer.It may be that in some cases one may require assistance of architect and engineer to complete the work but at the same time it must not be forgotten that the legislature has taken note of the fact that architects are professionals and qualifications are enumerated in the schedule to the Architects Act. So far as the Civil Engineers are concerned, nothing has been placed before us indicating that they are required to be enrolled with the statutory body recognised under the Act, empowering the statutory body to exercise powers over the members or to take action, such as disciplinary action.An engineer cannot be equated with an architect.This important aspect has been lost sight of by the Board while scrutinising the application.

30.       The Board has come out with a very weak defence that it was for the government to take a decision as to in which newspaper the advertisement should be circulated.Gujarat Housing Board should know its duties very well.It was for the Board to realize as what would be the outcome if there is no proper advertisement.It was the duty of the Board to see that there is proper circulating by giving advertisement in a newspaper having larger circulation.In our opinion, circulation of advertisement or publishing an advertisement in a newspaper having circulation in the evening only may not serve the purpose. General public is in the habit of reading the daily newspaper in the morning.It was the duty of the respondent Board to see that their advertisement is published in daily newspaper having vast circulation and having not done so, this advertisement has not served the purpose and possibly by giving advertisement in a newspaper having no larger publicity and having publication in the evening has benefited certain persons.The fact that in Gujarat out of more than 500 architects, very limited number of persons have submitted applications clearly indicates that there was no wide publicity and the person who were aware about the intention of the Board might have applied.Therefore also in absence of proper publication, it cannot be said that the Board has given proper publicity.

31.       In view of the fact that Board though invited applications only from Architectural Consultancy Firms has treated the application submitted on behalf of the firm having not all the partners as architects.The decision taken by the Board for preparing panel is bad in law and it must be quashed and set aside on the ground that respondent No. 3 is not an architectural consultancy firm.In view of the provisions contained in Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulation, 1989 the Board has committed a serious error in accepting the application.The decision of the Board is also required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it has deprived others who were similarly situated like respondent No. 3. If in the advertisement, the Board would have made it clear that the association of persons or firm consisting of the architects and engineers can apply then possibly no injustice could be said to have been done.The petition is thus required to be allowed.As a result, inclusion of respondent No. 3 in the panel of "Architectural Consultancy Firms" is not in accordance with law. Respondent No. 3 cannot be identified as a firm of architects.The agreement entered into between Gujarat Housing Board and respondent No. 3 on the basis that respondent No. 3 is a firm of architects, which in fact is not, is hereby quashed and set aside.However, it is directed that the Board shall carry out its obligation for the work carried out by the respondent No. 3 till this date.

            Civil Application No. 1927 of 2000 does not survice and hence rejected.

32.       In the result, the petition is allowed.

Sd/-
(D.M.DHARMADHIKARI,C.J.)
Sd/-
(B.C. PATEL, J)
By ORDER OF THE COURT 
Sd/-
   
Deputy Registrar
6-7-2000


Go to top
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa


IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 331 OF 2002

   

  1. The Executive Students Council,
    an elected boddy of representatives
    of the students of the College of Architecture, Campal, Goa, through its
    Chairman, Shri Jerry Cherian,
    resident of Vasco da Gama.

  2. Shri Rohit Nadkarni,
    General Secretary,
    r/o Bicholim.

  3. Shri Anthony Menezes,
    Cultural Secretary,
    r/o Vasco da Gama.

  4. Shri Suraj Gaonkar,
    Magazine Secretary,
    r/o Panaji.

  5. Shri Swapnil Sawant,
    University Representative,
    r/o Sanquelim.

  6. Shri Rehman Neroo,
    Sports Secretary,
    r/o Panjim.

  7. Shri Pallavi Ghate,
    NASA Secretary,
    r/o Ponda.
    and the Class Representatives, namely

  8. Shri Keegan Fernandes,
    r/o St. Cruz, Ilhas Goa,

  9. Shri Reagan George,
    r/o Margao

  10. Shri Swapnil Sawant,
    r/o Sanquelim.

  11. Shri Sumedh Naik,
    r/o Pernem

  12. Shri Rajnish Vatsa,
    r/o Taleigao.

  13.       Versus

   

............... Petitioners
  
   
   
  1. Government of Goa through
    its Chief Secretary,
    Secretariat, Panaji

  2. Directorate of Technical
    Education through its
    Director, Porvorim

  3. The Prinicipal,
    Goa College of Architecture,
    Campal, Panaji

  4. The Council of Architecture
    through its President,
    India Habitat Centre,
    Core 6A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road,
    New Delhi

  5. All India Council for
    Technical Education through
    its Chairman, New Delhi

  6. The Goa University through
    its Vice Chancellor,
    Bambolim, Goa
  
   
 ............... Respondents
  
Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners.
  
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. P.A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3.
   
Mr. V.P. Thali, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5.
    
Mrs. A.A. Agni, Advocate for the Respondent No.6

       

Coram : T.K. Chandrashekhara Das &
P.V. Kakade, JJ.
        
Date : 4th October, 2000

    
ORAL ORder(Per Chandrashekhara Das, J.)
   
         Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General.
    
2.      The main grievance highlighted in the Writ Petition by the Executive Students Council of the College of Architecture is that by the Notification dated 15th September 2000, Exhibit 'A' to the petition, issued by the Government of Goa, Director of Technical Education, the minimum marks required to be obtained by a student for getting admission in the College of Architecture in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics taken together was reduced to 50% from 60%. The apprehension of the petitioners is that by lowering the minimum marks for admission, the standard of education will be impaired and consequently there is every likelihood that the Council of Architecture may derecognize the degree that is being conferred by University of Goa. Several other grounds have been taken in the Writ Petition. We are not concerned about those grounds. The letter written by the Council of Architecture dated 27th September 2000, which is taken on record, shows that the minimum marks for admission in the aforesaid subjects is 50%. In view of this, the apprehension of the petitioners has no foundation. In the circumstances, no order is required to be passed in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
      
   Certified Copy
   

Sd/-

    Assistant Registrar,
    Hight Court of Bombay
    at Goa, Panaji (Goa)

Pin 403001
   

SEAL

   

OF THE COURT

   

       
Go to top
In the High Court of judicature at Bombay


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2001

   
All India Council for Technical Education

.................. Petitioner

                    Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.

........ Respondents

   
Shri C.J. Sawant, Counsel with Shri Vijay Patil for the petitioner.  
Shri G.E. Vahanavati, A.G. with Shri S.B. Shetye, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

S/Shri Y.S. Jahagirdar, V.M. Kanade, Appasaheb Desai and T.S. Ingale for the Interveners.

         

Coram :

B.P. Singh. C.J. and
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
17th September, 2001

P.C. :
We have heard Counsel for the parties. We have also heard Counsel for the Interveners.

          In this Writ Petition All India Council for Technical Education is aggrieved by the fact that the State of Maharahtra throughRespondent No.2, Directorate of Technical Education, has published information brochure indicating collegewise intake which is at variance with the actual intake approved by the AICTE. Mr. Sawant submits that the AICTE has authority to grant approval to the number of seats for admission available in the professional college and no professional college is permitted to change the intake capacity except with the approval granted by the Council. The authority of AICTE is not challenged by the Advocate General on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. He submits that the intake capacity of the College has to be determined by the AICTE. There have been conflicting orders of AICTE whereby in the first instance the intake is determined, which is subsequently reduced or increased, and again reduced or increased resulting in the State of Maharashtra not being in a position to understand the exact intake capacity of the colleges. Learned Advocate General further submits that the State Government will abide by any decision taken by the AICTE with regard to intake capacity of the Colleges but the decision should be taken in such a manner that there is no ambiguity. The State Government should be informed of the intake capacity well in time so that information may be given to the prospective candidates accordingly. Mr. Sawant appearing on behalf of the AICTE has also welcomed this suggestion made by the Advocate General. He submits that with effect from the Academic Year 2002-2003, the AICTE shall communicate to the State Government before 30th June each year the intake capacity of different colleges concerned in the State of Maharashtra, and the intake capacity so determined shall not be changed thereafter. The State of Maharashtra will inform the prospective candidates accordingly and no change after 30th June of that year shall be made.

          If in any subsequent year AICTE fails to communicate to the State Government the intake capacity of colleges for that year, the State Government shall proceed on the basis of the intake capacity as determined for the previous year.

          So far as the current Academic Year is concerned, viz., 2001-2002, we direct the Petitioner-Council to communicate to the State of Maharashtra, within three days from the date of receipt of this order, the intake capacity of different colleges as determined by it. The Advocate General states that the State Government will act in accordance with such determination, in so far as the admissions for the Academic Year 2001-2002 are concerned.After the AICTE communicates to the State Government, the statement as regards the intake capacity of various colleges, the State of Maharashtra will commence the admission process.

          Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

 

     Sd/-
       CHIEF JUSTICE
   DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

       TRUE COPY
    Sd/-
   17.9.2001
    (G.R.Salvi)


COURT SHERISTEDAR &
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT, APPELLATE SIDE
MUMBAI-400032

 
Go to top
In the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari at Delhi


IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI AT DELHI


Case No. 39/1 of 1996

In the matter of

Council of Architecture
through its Registrar
India Habitat Centre
Zone 6-A, Ist Floor
Lodhi Road
New Delh-110003

..................................... COMPLAINANT

       Vs

Shri R.R. Nagpal
R/o F.10/32 Krishna Nagar
New Delhi-110051
Office : Chamber No. 504
Civil Wing, New Courts
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054

..................................... ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 419, 465, 468 & 471 OF IPC

AND UNDER SECTIONS 35, 36 & 37 OF
THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972

NOTICE

I, Rakesh Garg MM, Delhi do hereby serve upon you R.R. Nagpal S/o Late Shri Dwarka Dass Nagpal as follows :

It is alleged against you that on the complaint of Shri B.R. Chopra dt. 24/8/95 that you were not the member of Council of Architecture but inspite of the same you were practicing as an Architect. Also your name has also not been registered/mentioned in the Council of Architecture. Inspite of your name not being registered in the Council of Architecture, you used the word Architect alongwith your name in the courts, in the reports/inspection reports filed by you in various courts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 36 Indian Architect Act, 1972.

You have also used the name plate/sign board and have used the word Architect alongwith your name and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 36 Indian Architect Act and within the cognizence of this court.

Show cause as to why you should not be tried by this court on the above offence.

Sd/-
MM/Delhi
19/5/1999

Notice read over and explained to accused who is further questioned as under:

Q. : Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make ?

Ans : I plead guilty

R.O. & A.C.Sd/-
MM/Delhi
19/5/99

Pr : Counsel for the complainant.

      Accused on bail with counsel.

      Notice under Section 36 Indian Architect Act, 1972 framed against the accused to which he pleaded guilty. I accept the plea of guilt as the same is voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. Accused is convicted for offence under Section 36 Indian Architect Act, 1972.

      Heard on sentence. Accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default SI for three months. Fine of Rs.1000/- paid by accused. File be consigned to Record Room.

      ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT:

      19/5/99

Sd/-
(Rakesh Garg)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi

 
Go to top
In the District Court, Civil Judge, Delhi


IN THE COURT OF N.C. NIRJA BHATIA : CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI

SUIT NO. 414/89

Shri Sudesh Pal Jain
Shri Sudesh Pal Jain
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand
R/o 163, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani (Haryana)

..................................... PLAINTIFF

       Vs

Council of Architecture
8-B, Shankar Market
Connaught Circus
New Delhi-110001
through
Its Chairman

..................................... DEFENDENT

SUIT FOR DECLARATION & INJUNCTION

JUDGEMENT


      By this order I shall dispose off the suit of the pltf. The facts of the present suit for declaration and injunction are that plaintiff is claiming himself to be a diploma holder of Civil Draftsman from Rohtak in the year 1972. Pltf. claims that he has been practising as an Architect since 1968 as associate of one Sh. S.K. Jain, Architect at Rohtak and most of the building plans submitted in the municipal committee, Rohtak, during the period from 1968 to 1972 were drafted by him under the guidance and supervision of Sh. S.K. Jain. It is claimed by the pltf. that he has been regularly and continuously attending the office of Sh. S.K. Jain during this period and on that account a certificate of experience was issued by Sh. S.K. Jain as well as by the Administrator of Rohtak municipality.

      Pltf. filled an application to get his name registered as Architect under the provisions of Section 25 (1) on the Architect Act of 1972 and submitted requisite documentary evidence established his practice as Architect since 1968. It is averred by the pltf. that as per the provisions contained U/s. 25 (b) of the Architects Act, 1972 any person who resides and carries on the Profession of Architect in India and is a citizen of India engaged in practice for five years prior the date of notification U/s. 24 (2) i.e. 27/04/74 has a statutory right to have his hame registered as an Architect.

      Pltf. claims that though he fulfilled all the essential qualifications, the deft. declined to register him as an Architect and alleged by their letter no. 002/84/7761, dt. 03/06/85 that on scrutiny of documents submitted by pltf., the plft. was found not eligible for registration as Architect. It is alleged by the pltf. that order was against facts and record and also against the provisions on the Act as it was passed on the basis of conjuctures and surmises and further no reason has been disclosed as to how and on what basis the conclusion has been arrived at.

      Aggrieved by the orders Pltf. filed an appeal U/s 26 of the Architect Act before the appropriate authority. However, after the lapse of five years, the pltf. received a letter dtd. 12/01/89 requiring the pltf. to produce the attested copies of municipal licence issued to the pltf. and list of the work undertaken by the pltf. as an Architect alongwith copies of letter of appointment engaging the pltf. as an Architect and other documents as Income Tax Assessment orders. The said documents were filed by the pltf. alongwith the request for an Early hearing. However, on 10/07/89 pltf. was shocked to receive the letter by the deft's office which stating that pltf. cannot be registered as an Architect U/s. 25 (b) of the Act as counsel was not satisfied that pltf. was engaged in practice as an Architect for more than five years prior to 27/04/74. It is alleged by the pltf. that the said letter was not supported with an order. Pltf. in pursuance approached the deft. and requested for order as the letter did not give any reason on the basis on which the deft. had arrived at the above said conclusion. It is the alleged by the pltf. that the act of deft. is arbitrary against the principles of natural justice as the pltf. ought to have been given an opportunity to produce the evidence to show his genuineness and authenticity of documents showing his experience as an Architect. It is alleged that no justification has been given in ignoring the certificate of the reputed Architect Sh. S.K. Jain who has in clear terms stated that pltf. was practising as an Assistant since May, 1968 as an Architect and most of the building plans submitted in the municipal committee, Rohtak since 1969 to 1982 were drawn by the pltf. under his guidance & control. Pltf. alleges that in view of these facts he is entitled for declaration and other relieves sought by him.

      Deft. has denied in totality the claim of the pltf. It is stated by the deft. that the object and the scheme of Architects Act, 1972 provides that there is a need for statutory regulation to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as Architect since large number of buildings are being constructed and as unqualified persons undertake construction which are uneconomical and unsafe. These persons being disrepute to the provision of Architecture and hence it was declared that it will be unlawful for any person to designate himself as Architect without requisite qualifications, experience and registration under the Act. It is admitted by the deft. that Section 25 of the Architect Act makes a provision for registration where applications are made after 27/04/74 and Section 25 (b) of the Act provides that in case a person does not hold the recognised qualifications but has been engaged in practice as an Architect for a period of not less than five years prior to cut-out date of 27/04/74, such person can be registered. It is admitted by the deft. that pltf. seeks to be covered under this Section.

      It is stated by the deft. that deft. has been visited with discretionary power of being satisfied about the eligibility of a person for registration as an Architect and the deft. is highly professionally skilled body and the decisions are based on material evidence produced before it. It is stated that deft. has to take into consideration a variety of factors for registering a person as an Architect in the light of rules and regulations and objects and reasons of the Act. It is admitted by the deft. that the essential reasons for incorporating the present section and fixing the date of 27/04/74 is to enable such of the unqualified persons having aesthetic and practical abilities and skill and technical knowledge who are actually engaged in practice as an Architect to get themselves registered for the purpose of continuing their profession. It is stated by the deft. that the Architect is the creator of building who conceives it and prepares the plan and superintends work and design as a creator. The skill necessarily involves a highly imaginative and creative mind and proficiency and ability to translate these ideas & concepts into drawings and thereafter to construct the building. It is stated by the deft. that the profession requires specialised knowledge of art, science, technology, general knowledge, latest trends, fashion, applied science, engineering, technology, construction, sanitation, heating, lighting, ventilation, accoustics etc. and other connected ancillary subjects. It is averred that an Architect all so be versed with the socio-economic laws of the Authority?s rules and regulations, the building bye-laws, the financial statistics, labour working, etc. Apart from this an Architect must have the necessary skill to proficiently integrate all this knowledge, experience and create a building which has its own identity and hence the knowledge of such diverse fields and the job involved while practising as an Architect requires lot of devotion in terms of time and energy. It is stated by the deft. that being a highly professional body deft. determines the eligibility of a person after careful consideration, scrutiny of the above things and after going through the above process, the application and appeal was rejected since the pltf. was not covered under the requirements.

      Deft. has denied that pltf. had been practising as an Architect since 1968, as alleged by the pltf. It is denied by the deft. that pltf. was regularly and continuously attending the office of Sh. S.K. Jain and was looking after his work including drafting of the site plan, as per full satisfaction, as alleged. Deft. has denied that the documents placed by the pltf. conclusively establish that pltf. was practising as an Architect from January, 1996 to August, 1972. Deft. further denies that other certificates produced by the pltf. establish that pltf. was practising as an Architect for the period of 1972 to 1982 and was a registered Architect for want of knowledge. Deft. further denies that the certificate of Sh. S.K. Jain is a conclusive proof of evidence towards the experience of pltf. It is stated that the certificate of Sh. S.K. Jain in clear terms state that the pltf. was practising as his Assistant since May, 1968 and most of the building plans submitted in the municipal committee, Rohtak were drawn by pltf. under his guidance and control, as alleged. Deft. denies that certificate was corraborated by the other certificates issued by the Municipal Committee of Bhiwani. It is averred that the certificate issued by Sh. S.K. Jain certifies only that pltf. is his cousin brother and is staying in his premises and is assisting him as Trainee as a Draftsman on a part-time basis. It is stated by deft. that on the basis of appreciation of these documents, it was found that pltf. did not qualify the eligibility criteria set-up by the counsel as per suit U/s. 25 (b) and after giving an opp. of being heard and personal appearance his appeal was rejected.

      In view of the facts, it is stated by deft. that pltf. is not entitled to any declaration, as alleged. Pltf. filed the replication and reiterated the facts narrated by him in the plaint. As the pleadings were complete, parties appeared for AD of documents and framing of issues which were framed on 02/05/91 to the following effect :

ISSUES :

  1. Whether the suit of the pltf. is not maintainable as per provisions of S.R.C. and Architects Act, 1972 ? OPD

  2. Whether the pltf. is entitled to the relief claimed ? OPP.

  3. Relief.

ISSUE NO 1

      Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue and was disposed off by the orders of Lt. Sh. Jai Prakash Narain, the then Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi on 11/11/93. In view of the disposal of this issue, issue is now not taken up.

ISSUE NO 2 & 3

      Onus of proving this issue was upon the pltf. To discharge the bonus, pltf. brought into witness box, PW1 Sh. M.P. Jain, Engineer from Municipal Committee, Bhiwani, PW2 Sh. Subhash Sindhwani, Clerk from Municipal council, Haryana, PW3 Sh. S.K. Jain, Architect, PW4 Sh. K.K. Jain, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jagadhari, Haryana, PW5 Sh. Rajinder Singh, Clerk, Municipal Council, Bhiwani. He deposed Himself as PW6.

      The deft. in rebuttal brought only Sh. Vinod Kumar, Registrar for deft. as DW1.

      The witnesses supported the documents filed on record by the plft. At the first instance, it may be appropriate that the perusal of evidence produced by the parties is started from the certificate issued by Sh. S.K. Jain, PW3 dtd. 30/12, Exhibited as PW3/A. The said certificate reads "To whom so ever it may concern, Certified that Sh. Suresh Pal Jain S/o Sh. Tara Chand Jain is my cousin brother. He has stayed with me in my house from 18/05/68 to 30/08/72." It further reads that "In this period he worked with me as a part time trainee in Draftsman Civil. He also assisted me in supervision of building, detailing for estimate and making drawings, etc. During this period his work and conduct found satisfactory."

      I would like to take a pause here and scrutinise this piece of evidence again. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere Sh. S.K. Jain, Architect certifies that pltf. was working with him as an Architect.

      The word 'Architect' gains imminense importance in view of these statements made by deft. in the written statement to the effect that the work in the Architecture and the job of an Architect is a cumulative job requiring multi-dimensional approach to the subjects concerning mankind. The present certificate clearly mentions that the pltf. was working with Sh. S.K. Jain as a part-time Trainee in Draftsman (Civil). It nowhere specifies that his experience even if stretched from 18/05/68 to 30/08/72 during the stay with Sh. S.K. Jain was in the capacity of an Architect touching the various aspects of Architecture and imparting comprehensive knowledge of the subject and further showing the approach of pltf. towards all the dimension enumerated above. The other documents/certificates place on record by the pltf. which are not disputed are of the period after 1972. If the period of 1972 is calculated up to the cut-out date i.e. 27/04/1974 it nowhere reaches to the experience of five years as set-out as an eligibility condition for the grant of registration. The certificates Ex. PW2/A issued by the Administrator as bearing a date of 1985. This certificate is based on Ex. PW3/A and hence cannot be placed over and above Ex. PW3/A and hence cannot be given more value. The other certificates such as Ex.PW4/1, Ex. PW4/2 are also belonging to the period after the year 1972 and hence taken into considerated does not help pltf. fulfilling the condition of five years experience.

      The Pltf. has further placed on record his matriculation examination certificate of his application for registration alongwith another certificate dtd. 17/8/78, same are exhibited by him as PW6/D1, Ex. PW6/1 and PW6/2. Again Ex. PW6/2 certifies that pltf. has been working as Draftsman (Civil) since 10/05/74 with one R.C. Aggarwal & Associates. This document is also in league with other certificates and also does not give any value to the experience as Architect of pltf. for the period prior to 1972. Pltf. has exhibited the order dtd. 30/05/85 issued by council of Architect which specifies that claim of pltf. cannot be allowed as at the time of pltf.'s allegedly started working as Architect was in the year 1968 and at that time pltf. was merely 16 years of age and on the basis of documents the contention of the pltf. that he was looking after the office of Hissar and Rohtak cannot be upheld and hence claim for registration was declined.

      At this stage, before I take-up the other documents placed on record by the pltf., I propose to deal with the counter-evidence placed on record by the defts. the registrar of the deft. who appeared as DW1 completely supported the claim of the deft. and rebuted that of pltf. It was categorically averred by the said witness in the sequence of events that the claim of the pltf. was admittedly taken-up for consideration on his application U/s. 25 (b). It was duly considered and was rejected. The appeal against the order was filed and was placed before the Advisory Committee consisting of various reputed persons from the field of Architecture, the said report is exhibited as DW1/3. It would be appropriate that few instances concerning the claim of the pltf. are reproduced. Under Item No.7 on page 6 resolution no. 136 specifies that appeals of the candidates such like pltf. in totality 71 appellants were taken-up for consideration. The names of persons whose appeals were not accepted are given on page 3 of Appendix C wherein the report of Advisory Committee is given. It says that personal hearing was imparted to 42 appellants who appeared out of 74 appeals, the remaining persons did not appear though the opportunity was given, however, pltf. appeared before the Advisory Committee and was granted a personal hearing. Clause 4, 6 clearly mentions the intention of the Committee and the objects while dealing with such persons wherein it says, "The Committee strongly feels on considering the appeals either in person or in absentia that many of the appellants being fully aware of the prescribed conditions for registration under the Architecture Act, 1972 are trying to seek registration somehow or other". The Committee, therefore, recommends that administration are in the initial stages itself clarify to the applicants on their eligibility or otherwise. The Committee further discussed the scope of Section 25 (b) in detail in Point 5 at page 2 in its report. It is pertinent that the finding on page 3 point 5.1 be produced which says, "On a careful reading of this provision, the committee came to the conclusion that the appellants should prove to the satisfaction of the Council that they have been engaged in practice as an Architect for a period of not less than five years prior to 27/04/74. Point 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 further defined the terms as Architect and phrase practising as an Architect. It would be interesting to note the finding on point 5.6 which says, "If a person is practising as a Draftsman, he is merely assisting the Architect in carrying-out his instructions and translating his ideas into drawings. This does not mean that a person is practising as an architect". Further annexure of this report at issue no. 31 details the case of the pltf. which says that "Sh. S.P. Jain of Bhiwani (Haryana) appeared before the Committee on Friday, the 17th February, 1989 in connection with his appeal against the decision of the Registrar of the Council for registration of his name under the Architects Act, 1972. The Committee noted that he obtained the Civil Draftsman Certificate in 1972 from Industrial Training Institute, Rohtak and also noted his claim that the was working on part-time basis with his counsin, Sh. S.K. Jain when he was studying for the Civil Draftsman Certificate Course. Shri Jain also made a plea before the committee for relaxation of the prescribed conditions for registration and taking into consideration his practice after 1972 to register him. The Committee, however, made clear to Sh. Jain that no relaxation is permissible."

      In totality, the perusal of report shows no infirmity whatsoever alleged by the pltf. It is patently clear from the perusal that the case of plft. was duly considered at all the stages by the appropriate, concerned authorities. The details were discussed and in view of the objects and intentions of the Architecture Act and in furtherance of the guidelines required for the provision enumerated above it was found that the case of pltf. was not covered under the definition of Architect as he was looking after the field of Draftsman (Civil). It is also clear that the pltf. himself was aware of such fact and asked for the relaxation which was declined.

      On the basis of this, the pltf. has taken the other Argument to the fact that his case was at par with some other persons namely M. Kumar, K.K. Jaitley, S. Ram Kakkar and Sh. Gulzaar Singh. It is stated by the pltf. that though his case was at par in view of the facts & circumstances of the other?s case he was discriminated upon and his registration was not considered wherein the other above named persons were registered by the defts. The reports concerning these persons are exhibited by the pltf. as Ex. PW6/5, Ex. PW6/6, Ex. PW6/7, and Ex. PW6/8. At the out set in the evidence given on oath by the deft., deft. denied that these orders were passed by the deft. It is stated by the Registrar DW1 that these are the orders of appellate authorities U/s. 24 Clause 4. It is stated by the deft. that the deft. has no jurisdiction with respect to these cases as they are dealt directly by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare and Department of Education. This contention was neither denied nor disputed by the pltf. It remains to be admitted. Apparently Ex. PW6/7 clearly shows that these are the appeals considered by the Govt. of India and not by the deft. in isolation. Pltf. did not bring any argument in support of the contentions that these orders were passed by the deft. The pltf. also did not bring any argument to the effect that he also approached or exhausted the remedy exhausted by the persons above named. Apparently, after the orders of the deft., pltf. came to the court for the grant of declaration without exhausting this remedy.

The appreciation of the documents admitted by the pltf. as PW5 to PW8 and the reading there of also shows that the certificates filed by the concerned persons were with respect to their experience in the field of Architecture and not in the field of Draftsman. Two of the persons above named were holding more than 8-10 years of experience. In view of these facts, the contention of the pltf. that he has been discriminated upon is also meritless. Heard, at this stage, I propose to take-up the objection furthered by the deft. that has held by the Hon. Justice, Sh. S.P. Wad in his orders dtd. 17/09/82 corraborated again by the orders dtd. 17/09/1982 on the same issue, it is held by Hon. Justice Sh. S.P. Wad that the courts which are not trained in the technical discipline of engineering and Architecture cannot claim any technical knowledge to the experts in the field. It is well recognised priniciples of law that the court shall not substitute its own Judgement to that of an expert particularly in highly technical fields. Scope of enquiry by the court is limited only to find-out whether the technical requirements of law in arriving at a decision are followed or not or whether the decision is vitiated by malafide, fraud, etc. I am in full confirmity and respectfully accept the opinion of Justice Sh. S.P. Wad. It is a well settled principal of law upheld by various courts of law that the pronouncements of the authorities having due diligence and knowledge shall not be disturbed unless it smacks of malafide or fraud, etc. The perusal of the above discussion leaves me with no doubt that the procedure was completely followed in its intent and sole at every stage by the deft. The pltf. also has not alleged any fraud. No malafide is also alleged by the pltf. The only contention raised by the pltf. were with respect to the declining, an opportunity and not following the principles of natural justice, arbitrariness on behalf of the deft. and discrimination which are properly met-out in the detailed discussions above. I see no ground to disturb the findings of the Advisory Committee. In view of this discussion, I am of the opinion that no wrong is committed and hence the issue sets at rest in favour of the deft. and agst. the pltf. In view of this observation, pltf. is not entitled to any relief, as prayed. The suit of the pltf. is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

Ele be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2001.

Sd/-
(Nirja Bhatia)

Civil Judge, Delhi

 
Go to top
In the Court of VIth Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune


IN THE COURT OF VI-TH JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION
PUNE AT PUNE
(BEFORE SHRI D.K. MULLASAHEB)
REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO.1432/99
EXH. NO. 38

M/s. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd.
A Company registered under
the Companies Act having its
Registered Office at
917/19, A, Shivajinagar,
Pune-411004

through its Managing Director,
Mr. Dattatraya Vishwanath Tikekar

..................................... Plaintiff

       Vs

  1. Council of Architecture,
    India Habitate Centre,
    Core 6-A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road,
    New Delhi
    Pin-110003
    Through it's Admn. Officer
    K. Gopalkrishna Bhat

  2. Mr. Sudhir Diwan,
    Age - Adult, occ - Architect,
    R/o - 4, Masion Beleverdre
    107, Queens Rd. (Next to IT office)
    New Marine Lines
    Bombay-400020

..................................... Defendents

(Summons to be served by Reg. A.D. Post)

Shri S.M. Kelkar advocate for plaintiff

Shri B.R. Phatak advocate for defendant no.1

Suit proceeded without W.S. against defendant no.2

SUIT FOR DECLARATION &
MANDATORY INJUNCTION

JUDGEMENT

(Delivered on 20.10.2000)

  1. This is a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against defendant no.1.

  2. The averments of the plaintiff in his Plaint are as under:-

    The plaintiff is a public Limited Company having it's registered office at Pune. Plaintiff company is dealing in business of consultation, and the company by name "FOSECO INDIA LTD" has intrusted the plaintiff company with the work of structural engineering, services inclusive of process engineering, detail engineering, project engineering services, work of road, area drainage and sewage, structural engineering services for plant building and other allied works including land development. Plaintiff further alleged that, the work of conceptual design of the said project has been given to one M/s. Sudhir Diwan from Bombay. The said conceptual design was to be submitted to Foseco India Ltd. and Foseco India Ltd. to prepare a detailed drawing as per their choice and Foseco India Ltd. is at liberty to make any such changes as they desire.

  3. It is further alleged by plaintiff that, plaintiff company has got team of experts architects, who are members of defendant no.1 and who work as an associate in the company. There are skilled architects on the panel of the company, who are also the members of the defendant. On 13th April, 1999, plaintiff company received the letter dt. 7.4.1999 from Administrative Officer of defendant company. The defendant no.1 thereby informed plaintiff company about the misuse of the title and style of the Architect by plaintiff company and of underbidding of fees than quoted by Architect. Plaintiff company further alleged that, due to the letter issued by defendant no.1, plaintiff company was at a loss to receive such letter because the said work has been awarded to the company on 4.12.1997 to the knowledge of defendant no.2. Plaintiff company further contended that, the defendant no.1 is not proper and correct forum to make the complaints mentioned in the letter of defendant no.1. It is further alleged that, again on 24.6.1999, defendant no.1 sent a show cause notice to the plaintiff company and suo moto hold the inquiry of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff further alleged that, defendant no.1 suo moto appointed itself as enquiry committee on the basis of correspondence between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 at any time did not disclose any correspondence or complaint of defendant no.2 to the plaintiff company on the basis of which dedendant no.1 has initiated inquiry.

  4. Plaintiff company has further alleged that, defendant no.1 was under legal obligation to follow the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice is in respect of dispute, which is time-barred and not within the perview of the jurisdiction of defendant no.1. The dispute raised by defendant no.1 in show cause notice comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Courts or High Courts. Plaintiff has given reply to that notice on 7.4.1999 and asked defendant no.1 to furnish the copy of the complaint made by defendant no.2 alongwith all such other documents. Plaintiff further alleged that, the notice dt. 7.4.1999 and show cause notice dt. 24.6.1999 are bad in law and they are required to be squashed. Plaintiff further alleged that, it is also necessary that, all correspondence between defendants that has resulted into issuing of the show cause notice should be furnished by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff company. Hence, plaintiff company has filed this suit for Mandatory Injunction and declaration that, defendant should produce the correspondence between them with all necessary documents and also prayed that, notice dt. 7.4.1999 and show cause notice dt. 24.6.1999 sent by defendant no.2 be declared as null and void.

  5. Defendant no.1 has resisted the plaintiff's claim by submitting it's W.S. at Exh. 16. Defendant no.1 has denied all the contents and allegations of the plaintiff against defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 contended that, present suit is not in a proper form and therefore, is not maintainable. It is further contended that, plaintiff's suit is affecting by the principles of non joinder of necessary parties and therefore, it required to be dismissed. It is further contended that, plaintiff has not added Foseco India Ltd,. as necessary party to his suit. Defendant company shows it's ignorance about the project intrusted by company Foseco India Ltd. Defendant no.1 contended that, in letter dt. 7.4.1999 itself, this defendant has disclosed the source of the information on the basis of which, the letter dt. 7.4.1999 was issued to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 further contended that, the letter dt. 7.4.1999 issued by this defendant as alleged by plaintiff. The letter dt. 13.5.1999 bearing no. PED/CAS issued by plaintiff in reply to the letter dt. 7.4.1999 issued by this defendant contains several investment and business allegations. The said letter dt. 13.5.1999 issued by plaintiff does not answer the allegations and charges levelled against plaintiff. Defendant no.1 shows ignorance about the transaction with defendant no.2.

  6. The defendant no.1 further contended that, defendant has followed the principles of natural justice and fairness of the procedure while issuing letters and notices to the plaintiff. Defendant contended that, defendant no.1 has jurisdiction to hold inquiry and to issue show cause notices under the provisions of Architect's Act, 1972. Defendant no.1 further contended that, the letter dt. 2.12.1998 received from defendant no.2 disclosed that, plaintiff company was appointed as a engineering consultation for detailed work mainly of civil and structural parts of the project and for preparing tendered document and other things. Defendant no.1 took notice of the fact that, plaintiff company has actually violated the provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972 by entering into the contract with Foseco India Ltd. to provide them with architectural design and drawing alongwith other engineering designs and drawings. Defendant has therefore, started process in inquiry, the plaintiff company has violated the provisions of Section 36 & 37 of Architect's Act by issuing notice Under Section 39 of the said Act. The defendant no.1 further contended that defendant has right to initiate further action against plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has further mentioned the statement of object & reasons of Architect's Act and some of the provisions of the said Act. Defendant no.1 further contendant that, the impugned letter dt. 7.4.1999 and notice dt. 24.6.1999 issued by this defendant in discharge of it's statutory function and authority, the relief claimed by plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted. The defendant further contended that, plaintiff's suit is required to be dismissed with Compensatory Costs.

    Defendant no.2 has not filed his W.S. Suit proceeds against him without his W.S.

  7. In view of the above averments of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, following issues have framed at Exh.17. I have given my findings against each of them for the reasons given thereunder:-

ISSUES                                                                        FINDINGS

  1. Does plaintiff prove that,
    plaintiff company has given
    work of conceptural design
    of structural engineering
    services project by FOSECO
    Co. ?

    ...........Yes

  2. Does plaintiff company prove
    that, conceptual design was
    to submit to Foseco India Ltd,
    for approval ?

    ...........Yes

  3. Does plaintiff prove that,
    plaintiff company has team
    of expert architects who are
    member of defendant no.1 ?

    ...........Yes

  4. Does plaintiff company prove
    that, work has been allotted
    to plaintiff company on
    4.12.1997 to the knowledge
    of defendant no.2 ?

    ...........Yes

  5. Does plaintiff company proved
    that, notice dt. 7.4.1999 &
    24.6.1999 are illegal ?

    ...........No

  6. Does defendant no.1 prove that,
    defendant no.1 has right to inquire whether
    plaintiff company violated
    the provisions of Sec. 36 &
    37 of Architect's Act, 1972 by
    issuing show cause notice dt. 24.6.1999 ?

    ...........Yes

  7. Does plaintiff company
    entitled for declaration as prayed ?

    ...........No

  8. Does plaintiff company
    entitled correspondence
    between defendants as prayed ?

    ...........Yes

  9. What order & decree ?      ...........As per Final Order
  1. AS TO ISSUES NO.1 TO 4


    The learned advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff has submitted that, Foseco India Ltd. company has intrusted plaintiff company the work of it's project. The Foseco India Ltd. Company has allotted the work of structural engineering services and other work, of it's project. He further submitted that, however, the Foseco India Ltd. company has allotted the work of conceptual design to the defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 has to submit his conceptual design to Foseco India Ltd. and afterwards Foseco India Ltd. has to prepare detail drawings as per their choice. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff further submitted that, the plaintiff company has team of experts architects, who are members of defendant no.1. He further pointed out that, defendant no.2 has knowledge that, Foseco India Ltd. company has allotted work of it's project on 4.12.1997. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the deposition given by plaintiff's witness no.1 Sharad Prabhakar Karandikar at Exh. 21. He pointed out that, plaintiff's witness no.1 has deposed on oath in support of these issues. Defendant no.1 has not challenged the evidence lead by plaintiff's witness in respect of the allotment of the work by Foseco India Ltd. Company to the plaintiff's company. He further submitted that, these issues have not contested by defendant no.1. He submitted that, there is no rebuttal evidence lead by defendant no.1 to disprove these issues no.1 to 4.

  2. Plaintiff has examined Sharad Prabhakar Karandikar at Exh.21. He deposed that, he knows that, plaintiff company has done the work of Foseco India Ltd. Company. He further deposed that, Foseco India Ltd. Company has given the work of over all project of consultancy to the plaintiff company. The work which is done by plaintiff company in project of Foseco India Ltd. includes structural designs, electrical works, mechanical works and other works. He has also deposed that, plaintiff company has architectural work of Foseco India Ltd. company. He further deposed that, defendant no.2 has to submit his conceptual design to Foseco India Ltd. Company. He has also deposed that, the Foseco India Ltd. Company is not under obligation to construct as per the conceptual design given by defendant no.2.

  3. In his cross-examination, defendant no.1 has put suggestion that, plaintiff company is having business in engineering consultancy. It appears that, defendant has not denied that, the Foseco India Ltd. company has given conceptual design of the structural engineering services project to the plaintiff company. Defendant no.1 has also not denied that, defendant no.2 has to submit conceptual design to the Foseco India Ltd. Company for it's approval. The evidence lead plaintiff clearly shows that, company has a team of architects, who are members of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has cross-examined plaintiff's witness on this point. Plaintiff's witness has given some of the names who are working as architect in the team of plaintiff's company. Defendant no.1 has not cross-examined plaintiff's witness and denied that, defendant no.2 has no knowledge about the work intrusted by Foseco India Ltd. Company to the plaintiff.

  4. So, the evidence on record clear that, plaintiff company has done the work of Foseco India Ltd. Company. The evidence on record also shows that, the Foseco India Ltd. Company has accepted conceptual design and constructed it's work as per his choice. Plaintiff's witness deposed on oath that, some architects are working with plaintiff company. All these facts are not denied by defendants. Defendant no.1 or 2 have not denied that, defendant no.2 has no knowledge that, Foseco India Ltd. Company has intrusted project work to the plaintiff company. In absence of the contrary evidence on record, I am of the opinion that, plaintiff has proved all these four issues. Hence, I answer these issues no.1 to 4 in affirmative.

  5. ISSUES NO. 5 & 6

    These two issues are related with each other. The main controversy between the parties are in respect of the legality of the notices issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has come with the specific case that, notices issued by defendant no.1 on 7.4.1999 and 24.6.1999 are illegal. On the other hand, defendant no.1 has contended that, it has right to inquire whether plaintiff company violate the provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972 by using the name and style and discharging duties as architect firm. So, it is just and reasonable to consider these both issues at one and same time.

  6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf has no right to issue notice to the plaintiff and ask plaintiff to desist from using the title and style of architect. He further submitted that, the second notice issued by defendant no.1 on 24.6.1999 is in continuation of the notice issued by defendant no.1 on 7.4.1999. He pointed out that, defendant no.1 directed the plaintiff company to share the remuneration of defendant no.2. He pointed out that, the question of remuneration of defendant no.2 and also the question in respect of charging fees are not covered by the provisions of section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972. He further submitted that, plaintiff has a team of expert architects. They are employees of the company. The architects who are employees of the plaintiff company are members of defendant no.1. So, there can not be mis-use of title and style of the architect even in view of the provisions contained in Section 36 and 37 of the Architects Act 1972. He further submitted that, these notices are at Exh. 24 & 26. Plaintiff has given reply by issuing notice, which are at Exh. 25 and 27. He submitted that, plaintiff has made all the facts clear in his notice at Exh. 25 and 27 still defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff company is a reputed company, which caused loss to the plaintiff company. So, it is apparently clear that, the notice issued by defendant no.1 at Exh. 24 and 26 are illegal and not as per the provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972.

  7. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 submitted that, defendant no.1 is a Body Corporate looking after the implementation of Architect's Act 1972. He further submitted that, defendant no.1 has issued notices to plaintiff which are at Exh. 24 and 26 in discharge of it's legal duties. He pointed out that, defendant no.1 has received letter from defendant no.2 as the plaintiff is involved in Architectural consultancy. He further pointed out that, plaintiff company has admitted in clear terms in notice reply at Exh. 25 that, plaintiff company has a team of Architects as full time employees of it's organisation where every architect is a member of defendant no.1 council. Plaintiff has also admitted that, it has all rights to perform the duties of architect to prepare architectural design, drawings and specifications of plaintiff firm. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 submitted that, these admission given by plaintiff itself creates doubt in the mind of defendant no.1 whether plaintiff is violating the provisions Under Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972. He further pointed out that, plaintiff's witness no.1 admitted in his cross-examination that, he can not state whether all the directors of the plaintiff company from 1996 to 1999 are the professional Architects or not ? He submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 37 of Architect's Act, 1972, "No person other than registered architect or a firm of architect shall use the title and style of architect". He submitted that, plaintiff has not made clear whether all the directors of the plaintiff company are professional architects or not ? The evidence, notice reply given by plaintiff disclosed that, plaintiff company is not architect firm. So, as per the provisions of law, defendant no.1 has issued first notice on 7.4.1999 and after that, defendant no.1 has issued show case notice as per the provisions of law on 24.6.1999. Both these notices are legal and as per the law. It is admitted fact that, plaintiff company is providing structural engineering services, detailed engineering project, engineering services, structural engineering services. Plaintiff's witness Sharad Prabhakar Karandikar has admitted that, plaintiff company is providing architectural services by appointing architects as employee or associates. Plaintiff company has also admitted in it's notice at Exh.25 that, plaintif company is a team of architects as a full time employee who are members of defendant no.1 - council. It further admitted that, plaintiff company has all rights to perform the duties of architect to prepare architectural designs. So, it is clear from the evidence that, plaintiff company is engaged in providing architectural services. From the admissions given by plaintiff, it appears that, plaintiff has a team of full time employees of architects. But, it is not the firm of architects. So, naturally, there is doubt as to whether the plaintiff company has violated the provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architects Act because as per the provisions of Architect's Act, no person except registered architect or a firm of Architects use the title and style of Architect. In above circumstances, it appears that, defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice on 24.6.1999, is legal and valid. Notice issued by defendant no.1 on 7.4.1999 is also as per the provisions of Law. It appears that, defendant no.1 stated in notice dt. 7.4.1999 to help defendant no.2 in getting his share of remuneration. It is clear from the notice that, defendant no.1 has not directed plaintiff company to pay or share the remuneration of defendant no.2. So, I am not agree with the submissions of learned advocate for plaintiff that, defendant no.1 has issued illegal notice on 7.4.1999 and 24.06.1999 beyond the scope of provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972.

  8. Admittedly, plaintiff has come with the case that, plaintiff company has a team of experts architects. These architects are the employees of the plaintiff company. It is not the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff company is a firm of architects, which provides architectural consultancy. So in order to verify whether the plaintiff company is a firm of architects as per the provisions of Section 36 of Architectural Act, 1972. Dependant no.1 has issued show cause notice to the plaintiff on 24.6.1999. It appears that, defendant no.1 has issued these notices in discharge of it's legal duties. Defendant no.1 has right to inquire whether plaintiff company violated the provisions of Section 36 and 37 of Architect's Act, 1972 ?

  9. In view of the evidence on record, I finds no force in the submissions of learned advocate for plaintiff that, defendant no.1 has illegally issued notices on 7.4.1999 and 24.6.1999. Hence, I am of the opinion that, plaintiff has failed to prove issue no.5. On the other hand, defendant no.1 has succeeded in proving issue no.6. So, I answer issue no.5 in negative and issue no.6 in affirmative.

  10. ISSUE NO. 7

    Plaintiff is claiming declaration that, notices dt. 7.4.1999 and 24.6.1999 are declared to be null and void, because these notices are illegal. I have already given finding on issue no.5 in negative. It is apparantly clear that, plaintiff is providing architectural consultancy services. However, plaintiff company is not the firm of architects. Plaintiff company itself admitted that, company has a team of architect employees. In above circumstances, to verify whether plaintiff company is a architect firm as per the provisions of Section 36 of Architect's Act or not ? defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice to the plaintiff on 24.6.1999.

  11. There is no breach of obligation between plaintiff company and defendant no.1. It appears that, defendant no.1 has directed plaintiff company to show that, plaintiff company is discharging duties as per the provisions of Architect's Act or not ? as defendant no.1 has started legal enquiry by issuing show cause notice. There is no illegal breach on the part of defendant no.1 in respect of the plaintiff company. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to declaration that, the notice dt. 7.4.1999 and 24.6.1999 is null and void. Hence, I answer this issue no.7 in negative.

  12. ISSUE NO. 3

    It is fact on record that, defendant no.1 has received a letter from defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 has made complaint against plaintiff that, plaintiff is not the firm of architect even though it engaged in providing architectural consultancy services. There is no dispute that, defendant no.2 has made complaint with defendant no.1 against plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has given some contents of letter written by defendant no.2. In this W.S. in para no.16. The W.S. of defendant no.1 is at Exh.16. It is the also fact on record that, defendant no.1 in it's notice at Exh. 24 mentioned that, it has been brought to their notice that, plaintiff firm is a engineering consultancy firm. So, defendant no.1 admitting that, defendant no.2 has made complaint against plaintiff company that, plaintiff company is mis-using the title and style of the architects. In above circumstances, plaintiff company has right to ask the correspondence occurred between plaintiff and defendant no.2 in respect of it's complaint. It is also just and reasonable on the part of defendant no.1 to disclose exact what complaint received by defendant no.1 against plaintiff company. Unless and until defendant has provided the documents on the basis of which defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice to the plaintiff company, plaintiff company will not be in a position to meet out it's case. Plaintiff company can not give proper reply to the show cause notice issued by defendant no.1 unless plaintiff company gets all the documents and correspondence on the basis of which defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice.

  13. In this regard, I am not agree with the submissions of learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 that, defendant no.1 is not under obligation to submit the documents on the basis of which defendant no.1 has issued show cause notice. So, I am of the opinion that, plaintiff is entitled for the copy of letter written by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 and other documents if any referred and relied upon by defendant no.1 at the time of issuing show cause notice to the plaintiff. Hence, I answer this issue in affirmative.

  14. In the result, I pass the following order.

ORDER

  1. Plaintiff's suit is partly decreed.

  2. Defendant no.1 is directed to supply the copy of letter written by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 making complaint against plaintiff company and other documents if any referred and relied upon by defendant no.1 at the time of issuing show cause notice to the plaintiff on 24.6.1999.

  3. Plaintiff's suit for declaration is hereby stands dismissed.

  4. Defendant no.1 is directed to pay proportionate costs to the plaintiff company.

  5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.

Pune
Date : 20.10.2000
  Sd/-

(D.K.MULLA)
6th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Pune
   
   
  SEAL OF THE COURT  
 
 
 
Go to top