Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sharan Desai M., S/o. Late Shri Hanamant Rao Desai - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Chief Secretary To Government and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.16114 Of 2021 (GM – RES)
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Architects Act, 1972 - Section 3, (3)(f) - Council of Architecture Rules, 1973 - Rule 5, 23, 24 - Process of selection - Invite for an interview - Nomination as a Member of Council - Seeking a direction to invite him for an interview for process of nomination/selection as Member of Council and during pendency of petition, calls in question nomination/selection of 2nd respondent – Nomination would become a tool to pick and choose at hands of each State Government with qualification or no qualification; experience or no experience - Para 15.
Finding of the Court:
For nomination or selection of a Member, there is no criteria indicated - Nomination would become a tool to pick and choose at hands of each State Government with qualification or no qualification; experience or no experience - Petitioner is a highly qualified Architect and had submitted his application or expression of interest to become a Member of the Council. Though there is no response to the application so submitted by the petitioner, the objections by the State clearly indicate that it is the pleasure of the Government to nominate any person - criteria is not laid down under the Act, to make the action of the State become free of any arbitrariness or a pick and choose, it is in the least necessary to notify the vacancy and call for applications from eligible candidates, who would be qualified to be nominated/selected in terms of the Act - Though the petitioner would not get the relief that his nomination to be considered, since time has passed by, he is entitled to, only a direction for consideration of his case in future when the nomination of the 2nd respondent comes to an end.
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, in person, is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking a direction to invite him for an interview for the process of nomination/selection as Member of Council of Architecture of India (‘the Council’ for short) and during the pendency of the petition, calls in question the nomination/selection of the 2nd respondent as Member of the Council.
2. Heard the petitioner, in person, Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3. Brief facts, that leads the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
The petitioner is an Architect registered with the Council. The petitioner having completed bachelor degree in Architecture from an Institution in the City of Bangalore, travels to United States of America (‘USA’) for post graduation and is now Master of Architecture, Areas of Specialization in Architecture from the University of Oklahoma, USA. The Council has several Members in it, nominated/selected by the representatives of the State Governments who form the Council. The term of one Sri B.V.Satish ended on 26-08-2021, who was the representative in the Council from the State of Karnataka. Owing to ending of his term, the petitioner files an application submitting his resume appended to it on 04-01-2021, seeking nomination as a Member of the Council representing the Government of Karnataka, in terms of the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). On 23-06-2021, when the petitioner did not receive any reply on the application submitted, he sent a follow up letter/reminder to the application dated 04-01-2021, requesting his nomination. Again on 13.08.2021, one more reminder was sent. None of them yielded any result as no communication/reply was received by the petitioner for eight months, as to what became of his application seeking his nomination as Member of the Council. It is at that juncture, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the Government nominated the 2nd respondent as Member of the Council. Then this Court passed the following order on 25.11.2021:
The application seeking impleadment is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and the person to be impleaded is the beneficiary of the nomination in question; thus he is a proper and necessary party if not a necessary party in view of RAZIA BEGUM Vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM & OTHERS.
Petitioner has amended the cause title in the open court with its leave.
Issue emergent notice to the impleaded respondent.”
This Court directed the petitioner to amend the cause title and bring in the selected/nominated person as a party respondent. Later, this Court on 21-03-2022, directed the State to place on record the procedure followed for nominating the 2nd respondent as Member of the Council. This Court on 31-05-2022, permitted the petitioner in person to file an amended petition raising a challenge to the nomination of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner files an application seeking to implead the Union of India and the Council as respondent Nos.3 and 4, in terms of the directions issued by this Court dated 15.09.2022. It is then, the Union of India and the Council come into the picture. On 15-12-2022, this Court directed the Deputy Solicitor General of India to take notice, assist the Court and file objections concerning nomination of a Member from each State to the Council under the Act. It is at that stage, the matter was heard.
5. The petitioner, who made his submissions in person, would contend with vehemence that there is no procedure stipulated under the Act for nominating a Member from each State to the Council and the Council performs several functions and, therefore, the qualification and the criteria for select
Compliance with the resignation procedures and eligibility criteria under the Architects Act, 1972 is crucial for the validity of nominations to the Council of Architecture.
Point of Law : Proviso to Article 243R(2) does not apply to the election of Chairperson of Municipality concerned, the same also does not deserve acceptance, as the proviso specifically bars the nomi....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review of executive action and upheld the discretion of the government to nominate individuals with special knowledge or experience in municipal adm....
Applications must comply fully with stipulated documentation under the Press Council Act and related rules; non-compliance can lead to rejection regardless of prior acceptance.
Nominated members of statutory bodies cannot be unilaterally removed by the nominating authority without a directive from a higher authority, ensuring continuity in representation.
A challenge to a statutory notice is barred if the applicant participates in the process without protest, particularly when the challenge is raised after significant delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
