SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Del) 269

S.B.WAD
OM PRIKASH MITTAL – Appellant
Versus
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.R.Nagraja, Mukul Gupta, R.S.MALHOTRA, YASHPAL

S. B. WAD, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition, under Section 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Council of Architecture passed on October 9, 1979, refusing the registration to the petitioner as an Architect, under Section 25 (b) of the Architect Act, 1972. The relevant portion of the order reads :

"i regret to inform you that on the basis of the documents submitted, and your personal interview, you cannot be registered as an Architect under Section 25 (b) of the Architect Act, 1972 as the Council is not satisfied that you were engaged in practice of ex service as an Architect for more than 5 years prior to 27th April, 1974. "the petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that Section 35 and 37 of the Act violate Article 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

( 2 ) FOR appreciating the petitioner s grievance, the object and scheme of the Act will how to be noted. The statement of objects and reasons fully explain the reasons for the passing of the Act. The statement reads :

"since independence and more particularly with the implementation of the Five-year Plans, the building consitruction activity in our country has exp













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top