Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved in the petitions is the common one.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the communication dated 9-3-2000 issued by the Registrar - respondent No. 2 refusing to grant renewal of Registration of the petitioners permitting them to act as Architects.The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said communication and directions to the respondent No. 2 to renew the registration of the petitioners by accepting the renewal fee as per the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Architects Act, 1972.

3. The petitioners, young lady architects, were conferred a Degree of Bachelor of Architecture by the Nagpur University. Respondent No. 3 - the Council of Architecture functioning under Section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972, had recognized the said Degrees conferred by the Nagpur University in 1989. The petitioners were registered with the respondent No. 3 in or around 1992 and thereafter they have been prosecuting their career as Architects. They are also registered as the Members of the Indian Institutes of Architects and therefore, the petitioners have claimed that they are qualified and eligible to carry on their profession as Architects in accordance with law. The petitioners' registration under Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972, is required, to be renewed annually under Section 27 of the Act on payment of renewal fees. According to the petitioners, they have satisfied and complied with all the lawfully prescribed conditions under the provisions of the Architects Act and, therefore, they are entitled to carry on their profession as Architects as guaranteed, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the act of the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners by impugned order dated 9-3-2000 being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide Degree Holders of the Nagpur University which has been recognized by respondent No. 3 under the Act and, therefore, the refusal on the part of the respondent No. 3 to renew the registration of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners got lateral admissions directly in the fourth and fifth year B.Arch. programme being offered by the Nagpur University after undergoing 4 years B. Tech. (House and Interior Course) from the same University. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 has erroneously presumed that the petitioners have not undergone the course as stipulated in the Minimum: Standard of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983 (Regulations on Undergraduate Architectural Education) laid down by the Council of Architecture with the prior approval of the Central Government. According to the petitioners, they have successfully undergone 4 years B. Tech. (HID) Course from the Nagpur University and thereafter they were admitted to the 5 years B. Arch. Degree Course of the same University and, therefore, it can not be said that the petitioners have not undergone 5 years Undergraduate programme in Architect as per the said Regulation. According to the petitioners, the four years B. Tech. (HID) Degree Course has been recognized by the Nagpur University and that has been held to be eligibility for getting admission to the fourth year of B. Arch. Degree Course. The petitioners have further submitted that the 4 years B. Tech. Course has identical course for the first, three years which the three years of the B. Tech. Degree Course has prescribed. According to the petitioners, the three years syllabus of B. Tech. is equivalent verbatim with the three years of B. Arch. syllabus and there is no difference of any nature. The Course of B. Tech. is not inferior or is not less in any manner but on the contrary the students have to spend 4 years to get the Degree of B. Tech. whereafter they become eligible to get admission for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. for the fourth and final fifth year. From 1989 onwards, the respondent No. 3 have been registering all such graduates holding the Degree of B. Arch. and the petitioners have been practising the profession of Architect without any hindrance or without any problems.

5. According to Shri L. K. Khamborkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, justified the action of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners as according to him, the petitioners have not successfully completed the Architectural Course of five years as prescribed under the Act. The learned counsel submits that a candidate to become eligible to be registered as the Member of the Council has to undergo five years Degree Course of the Bachelor of Architecture from the first year to fifth year. He submits that in the case of the petitioners, they have not completed five years of the Degree Course of the B. Arch. as they got admissions in the fourth and fifth year of the Course and, therefore, they cannot be registered as the practising Architects under the Law. Shri Khamborkar further submitted that the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University is without any authority and, therefore, it could not prescribe the B. Tech. as the eligibility for admission to the fourth and fifth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioners who have not undergone the studies from the first year to fifth year at a stretch in the College of Architecture, they cannot be recognized as Bachelor of Architecture. Since the Nagpur University had no power and jurisdiction to prescribe the B. Tech. as a step stone to get admission in the fourth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture, the said Ordinance is null and void and, therefore, the lateral admissions of the petitioners cannot be termed as lawful to be recognized as eligibility criteria for the registration of the petitioners as the members of the respondent No. 3 Council. The learned counsel fairly admitted that all the petitioners were registered initially under a bona fide belief held by the authorities of the Council that the petitioners were bona fide graduates from the Nagpur University holding the Degree of B. Arch. having undergone the five years course as prescribed. According to the learned counsel, the officers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University and, therefore, they were admitting the students in the category of the petitioners who had taken the benefit of lateral admissions.

10. Secondly, the Council had recognized the B. Arch. Degree of the students who got the lateral admissions from 1989 onwards. They registered them in the year 1992 and registration continued till 1999. In the year 1999, for the first time, the Council appears to have refused to renew the said registrations on the purported ground of lateral admission to the fourth year course being in violation of the Regulation. The Council has continued the registration of all such students upto 1999. The petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. students have been lawfully practicing since then. It cannot be said that they are quack and bogus Graduates from any bogus University or unrecognized Institution. They have been carrying on their profession lawfully and honourably after their successful pursuit of the two degree courses of the Nagpur University. They have been renewing their registration only till 1999. Furthermore, as far as the subjects and competence of the petitioners and other similarly placed Architects, it can not be said that they have not learnt the subjects of the first three years course of the B. Arch. There is no dispute that the B. Tech. (HID) Course is equivalent to the three years course of the B. Arch. In fact, they have spent one year more in the subjects. The Council is all of a sudden trying to disqualify and derecognise them after the period of 10 years which is not a small period in the career of the professionals. Most of the petitioners might have established themselves comfortably and might have taken off in their profession by 1999. To de- recognise or to disqualify them at this stage would not be in the interest of justice at all and it will not be equitable to do so. There is no element of fraud or illegality at any stage, though the learned counsel for the Council tried to argue that the petitioners had not disclosed that they were lateral admissions in the fourth year course of B. Arch. They have filled up the prescribed forms as per the requirements and they have not suppressed any material from the Council. It was for the Council to have asked the applicants if the Council had any doubt about the fact of their admissions and the fact of their becoming B. Arch. After completing the course. The Nagpur University has validly accepted the B. Tech. (HID) Course as the eligibility for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. and the students of the B. Tech. students got admissions to the B. Arch. Degree Course in accordance with law. We do not find any suppression or fraud or any dishonesty on the part of the petitioners. Their degrees are not spurious nor are they from a fake University. These degrees were and are genuine and bona fide degrees conferred on them by the Nagpur University and, therefore, the Council initially recognized the fact of the Ordinance and also the fact of the lateral admissions in the B. Arch. Course and registered, the petitioners on the "architects" as holders of the recognized qualifications under the Architects Act, but for the reasons best known to it, in and from the year 1999 the Council changed its mind and refused to renew the registration on the ground of lateral admissions of the students of the B. Tech. (HID) to B. Arch. Degree Course. In our considered opinion the decision of the Council to refuse to renew the registration of the petitioners is unreasonable and arbitrary and is contrary to the provisions of the Architect Act, The Petitioners are the architects holding recognized qualifications as included in the Schedule at item 1 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Act recognises even diplomas of many specified Institutes also.