The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and order, and the alleged deficiencies were almost identical to those considered and rejected in the earlier litigation, indicating harassment by the respondent no.3.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent no.3 to withdraw and/or cancel the show cause notice dated 25th October 2021 and seeks to impugn the order dated 29th November 2021 passed by the respondent no.3 granting extension of approval to the petitioner for M.Arch. Course reducing the intake to 0 for academic year 2021-22 and to grant extension of approval to the petitioner for the first year M.Arch. Course with intake of 20 for academic year 2021-22.

2. In view of the urgency of the matter, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the respondent no.3 addressed this Court on the interim reliefs in the writ petition. We have also heard Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 while hearing the prayer for interim relief.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an Architecture College imparting education in various fields in and around Nashik as also outside Nashik gradually. The petitioner College was established in the year 1994 wherein B.Arch. Course was started. In the year 2011-12, the petitioner College started conducting course for Master of Architecture (M.Arch.). Since 2011-12, the petitioner had been granted permission by the respondent no.3 council to permit 20 students for the said M.Arch. Course. The said permission is continued all throughout till the academic year 2017-18. In the year 2017-18, the respondent no.3 proposed to reduce intake capacity from 20 students to 0 student by issuing show cause notice. The said show cause notice was impugned by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition bearing No.8468 of 2018 in this Court.

4. By judgment dated 6th August 2018 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, the said show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 for the academic year 2018-19 came to be quashed and set aside. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is not impugned by the respondent no.3 or by the other respondents before the Honble Supreme Court of India.

5. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents annexed to the petition and would submit that since 2011 onwards, the petitioner was granted permission to admit 20 students in the said M.Arch. Course on year to year basis. Only for the first time, a show cause notice was issued for the academic year 2018-19 on the ground similar to the ground raised in the impugned show cause notice which is the subject matter of this petition. The said show cause notice came to be quashed and set aside by this Court. He submits that the impugned show cause notice issued on similar ground is totally without jurisdiction.

6. It is submitted that though there was detailed reply given to the show cause notice by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 in the impugned order dated 29th November 2021 did not consider any of the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and passed cyclostyle order which is replica of show cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 on 27th June 2018.

7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the show cause notice issued by the competent authority itself was without jurisdiction. The competent authority has no jurisdiction to issue any such show cause notice. Consequently, the order passed by the competent authority on 29th November 2021 for the academic year 2021-22 is also without jurisdiction. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel invited our attention to Section 10 of the Architects Act, 1972 (for short "the said Act") and would submit that the decision, if any, could have been taken by the Executive Committee and not by the competent authority.

8. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the respondent no.3 in the affidavit-in-reply has sought to rely upon "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Guidelines for Post- Graduate Programme 2006" and also Se