Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Council of Architecture – Appellant
Versus
The Academic Society of Architects (Tasa) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 24702 of 2019)
Decided On : 14-02-2022
IMPORTANT POINT
Minimum standard of architectural education – Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise.
Headnote:
Architects Act, 1972 – Sections 21 and 45 – Minimum standard of architectural education – Power of Council to make regulations – Section 21 does not contain a stipulation that, “the Council may by regulation prescribe minimum standards of architectural education” – Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise – It is only in cases where Council chooses to prescribe standards in form of regulations that requirement of approval of Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary – High Court addressed itself merely to question of requirement of approval of Central Government under Section 45(1) and did not go into the question of locus standi of 1st respondent – High Court even overlooked fact that none of educational institutions imparting architectural education ever chose to challenge communications impugned before High Court – Impugned order of High Court set aside and writ petition filed by 1st respondent before High Court shall stand dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 18 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The 1st respondent herein which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and which has as its members, professional architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the “Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017” circulated by the appellant herein vide communications dated 31.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. The main and perhaps the only ground of challenge to the Regulations was that the Regulations required the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972 before they are implemented and that no such prior approval was obtained before issuing impugned communications. The appellant herein took umbrage under Section 21 of Act. The appellant also questioned the locus standi of 1st respondent to challenge the impugned communications, since the communications were addressed to institutions teaching Architecture, none of which had come forward to challenge the same. Taking a view that Section 21 cannot be read in isolation and that provisions of Section 45 are mandatory, High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communications.
Findings of Court:
If at all, the 1st respondent-society (writ petitioner), due to nature of its membership, could have been aggrieved only by prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. The 1st respondent could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. Unfortunately, High Court did not address itself to these important issues.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Leave granted.
2. The 1st respondent herein which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and which has as its members, professional architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the “Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017” circulated by the appellant herein vide communications dated 31.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. The main and perhaps the only ground of challenge to the Regulations was that the Regulations required the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972, (in short referred to as ‘the Act’) before they are implemented and that no such prior approval was obtained before issuing the impugned communications.
3. The appellant herein took umbrage under Section 21 of the Act. The appellant also questioned the locus standi of the 1st respondent to challenge the impugned communications, since the communications were addressed to institutions teaching Architecture, none of which had come forward to challenge the same.
4. Taking a view that Section 21 cannot be read in isolation and that the provisions of Section 45 are mandatory, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communications. Hence, the appellant is before us.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
6. Before we consider the issue that arises for consideration, we must take note of one important subsequent development. After this Court ordered notice in the Special Leave Petition, a Notification bearing F.No.CA/193/2020/MSAER dated 11.08.2020 was published in the Government Gazette, notifying the “Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020”. These Regulations were directed to come into force with effect from the 1st day of November, 2020. These Regulations have been issued, as seen from the Notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e), (g), (h) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 read with Section 21 of the Act. They have been issued in supersession of the 1983 Regulations.
7. Due to the above subsequent development, the question relating to the inter-play between Section 21 and Section 45 of the Act has become one of mere academic importance. However, Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the question of law is of importance and advanced arguments.
8. Admittedly, the communication dated 31.10.2018 issued by the appellant herein drew the attention of the educational institutions to the revised eligibility criteria for admission to 5 year B.Arch. degree course and also to the Minimum Standards for Architectural Education prescribed by the Council to be followed for the academic session 2019-20. The second impugned communication was dated 03.12.2018 which was the “Approval Process” for 2019-20.
9. Both the communications dated 31.10.2018 and 03.12.2018, impugned before the High Court, were not part of any Regulations framed by the appellant in exercise of the power conferred by Section 45(1) of the Act. The requirements of prior approval and the notification in the official gazette in terms of Section 45(1) of the Act, are in respect of Regulations and not in respect of communications such as the ones impugned in the writ petition. This is why an argument is advanced on the interplay between Sections 21 and 45 of the Act. Section 21 reads as follows :
“21. Minimum standard of architectural education.–The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by colleges or institutions in India.”
Section 45 reads as follows:
“45. Power of Council to make regulations.- (1) The Council may, with the approval of the Central Government, [by notification in the Official Gazette], make
