Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Though separately, petitioners challenge in these petitions, the same decision of the third respondent, Southern Planning and Development Authority; communicated to the petitioner Smt. Meghana A.P. Desai, by its letter dated 18th April, 1985, directing her to re-submit her application and plans for construction of a house at Margao signed by an Architect registered with it and not by an Engineer. The issue and the question raised are the same and hence, this common judgement.

2. Petitioner Smt. Meghana A.P. Desai, is the owner of a plot of land situated at Margao and bearing the chalta Number 54 of P.T. Sheet No. 196 of the Margao City Survey, petitioner Vikas Vithal Desai, being a Civil Engineer, registered under No. 292 with the local P.W.D. and under No 32 with the Margao Municipal Council, carrying on the profession of Civil Engineer in Goa. She decided to raise a building in her aforesaid plot of land and after engaging the services of the petitioner Vikas, submitted the required plans signed by the latter alongwith her application, to third respondent. By its letter dated 18th April, 1985 addressed to Smt. Meghana, the third respondent directed her to re-submit her application and plans signed by an Architect registered with it and not by an Engineer as required by its Rules, namely by the Note to Rule 13 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning (Planning and Development Authorities) Rules, 1977.

4. Developing and elaborating the above grounds, Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, first contented that section 44 of the aforesaid Act does not permit the Government to frame rules as a result of which the Engineer is excluded from signing plans of construction and applications to obtain a licence therefor. The enabling power conferred on the Government by the Act to frame rules is for the furtherance of the aims laid down therein and hence, rules framed in the exercise of such power, must be controlled by the same aims. These aims are to have a proper development and sound constructions and therefore, any rules that disqualifies a person otherwise technically qualified to submit development and construction plans will be ultra vires section 44. Now, Civil Engineers are fully qualified to do works of development and of construction of building and as such, there is no reason for excluding them from the class of persons who can sign the plans and application for construction of building and for restricting this class to Architects only, specially when it clearly flows from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Bill submitted for the passing of the Architects Act, 1972, that Engineers are not forbidden from designing plans for buildings and that the design, supervision and construction of buildings is not an exclusive responsibility of Architects. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the restriction impose in the Note to Rule 13 is arbitrary and ultra vires section 44. He next contend that, once permission of the Planning and Development Authority is obtained for development, it becomes necessary in view of section 184 of the Municipalities Act to apply for Municipal sanction and permission to construct the building. The Bye-laws of the Margao Municipal Council permit the plans to be signed by an Architect , a Designer or an Engineer. Therefore, the restriction impose in the note to Rule 13, without any valid reason , is bad in law as discriminatory and arbitrary.

8. The Statement of Object and Reasons for the Bill of Architects Act will, in our view, be helpful to our search for the correct answer to the said question, for after having stated in the Clause (1) that ".........A large variety of buildings, many of extreme complexity and magnitude, like multi-storeyed office buildings, factory building, residential houses, are being constructed each years. 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 bringing into discrepute the profession of Architects. Various organizations, including the Indian Institute of Architects, have repeatedly emphasized 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 lines as similar Acts in other countries, "it is clarified in Clause (3)" that the legislation protects the title 'Architects' but does not make a design, supervision and construction of buildings as an exclusive responsibility of Architects. Other professionals like Engineers will be free to engage themselves in their normal vacation in respect of building construction works provided that they do not style themselves as Architects'. It would thus appear from the combined reading of the aforementioned Clauses (1) and (3) that actually there is no substantial differentiation in the technical qualifications of Architects and Engineers and both such professionals are qualified and have the necessary knowledge and expertise to engage themselves in building construction and development activities.

10. In the light of the above, it would appear that both the Courses of Architects and Civil Engineers have the basic qualifications required for engaging themselves in activities of construction and development. It was, however, contented by Mr. Jaques, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, that it is not so. He produced on Ordinance of the Bombay University prescribing the examination for several semesters in the course of Architecture. He minutely took us through the Ordinance and submitted that it is clear that the qualifications of the Architects are by far more specializes and better then those of the Engineers. Insofar as the construction and development activities are concerned , he submitted that designing is taught in all the years of the course and examinations in respect of such subjects are on minute details of it. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it is not possible to say that only because of some skeleton knowledge of the said subjects is given in the course of Civil Engineering, the Civil Engineers are duly qualified to proceed with activities of construction and development. He contented that the designing is a specialized subject and such designing will not be properly done by an Engineer, just like and in the same manner as an Architect will not be qualified to proceed with actual construction work of a building. We are, however, unable to agree with the learned counsel, for we find that the papers prescribed in respect of building construction, designing and drawing , town planning and development in the Engineering Course by implication show that the latter course gives the required technical knowledge not only for the construction work but also for development. Besides, we may pointout that the Town Planning Authorities are not bound to accept all the plans which are submitted to them for development of the land or for construction. This being so, we fail to find any intelligible differentia distinguishing the Architects from the Engineers which justifies the classification made in the Note to Rule 13, and in any event, we find no rational nexus between the said classification and the object to be achieved, i.e. a proper, disciplined and adequate development. The said classification being therefore, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory is liable to be stuck down. It was, however, contented by Mr. Nadkarni, that the Engineers and Architects, are not similarly situated and in addition, the classification is made between Architects and non-Architects, such classification being, entirely permissible as can be seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakhawant Ali v. State of Orissa, . The learned Counsel further contented that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In the present case, he added, the classification was made to get a proper development of the land and proper construction and by requiring that the plans for development should be signed and submitted only by an Architect, it is not possible to say that such classification is unreasonable and arbitrary. The learned Counsel is entirely right in the submission that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. But as the Supreme Court observed in Sakhawant Ali's case (above), such classification cannot be arbitrary but must rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which the classification is made. We already mention that it flows from the preamble and the scheme of the Town Planning Act that the scope thereof is to have a proper and adequate development and planning. We also mention that, in our view, there is no substantial difference in the qualifications of Engineers and Architects insofar as the development and construction activities are concerned. In these circumstances therefore, the classification made is not reasonable and justified wrongly separating the engineers from the Architects for the aforesaid purpose.