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

1982 Supreme(Del) 269

High Court Of Delhi
OM PRIKASH MITTAL - Appellant
Versus
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE - Respondent
Civil 547 of 1980
Decided On : 09/17/1982

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

The experience requirement under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972, for registration as an architect must be experience in architectural work, and not merely experience as an engineer.

Headnote:

ARCHITECT ACT, 1972 - SECTION 25(B) - REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS - EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - COUNCIL'S DECISION UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, an engineer, challenged the Council of Architecture's decision denying his registration as an architect under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972. He argued that his experience as a junior engineer in CPWD should be considered as architectural experience, and that the Council's decision was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Council's decision was based on sufficient objective data and that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience to be registered as an architect. The Court also rejected the petitioner's arguments that the Council's decision was discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's experience as a junior engineer in CPWD should be considered as architectural experience for the purpose of registration under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972? 2. Whether the Council's decision denying the petitioner's registration was discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's experience as a junior engineer in CPWD did not constitute architectural experience as required under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972. The Court noted that the petitioner's duties as a junior engineer did not involve planning or designing buildings, and that he was not involved in any architectural functions. 2. The Court also held that the Council's decision was not discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Council's decision was based on objective data and that there was no evidence of discrimination or mala fides.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Council's decision to deny the petitioner's registration as an architect.

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 expanded almost on a phenomenal scale. A large variety of buildings, many of extreme complexity and magnitude like multi-storeyed office buildings, factory buildings, residential houses, is being constructed each year. 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 disrepute the profession of architects. Various organisations, including the Indian Institute of Architects, have repeatedly emphasised the need for statutory to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as architects. With the passing of 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 line as similar Act in other countries. "section 37 of the Act prescribes that after the expiry of one year from the date and pointed under sub section (2) of Section 24, no person other than a registered architect or a firm of architect shall use the title and style of architect. The appointed date fixed under the said Section is 27th April, 1974. Since the prescription of the qualifications and experience for the registration of a person as an architect were being prescribed for the first time by the said Act, it was necessary to make a special provision for the registration of persons who were working as architects before that date. Section 24 provides for a Registration Tribunal consisting of 3 persons to examine whether a person is qualified enough to be registered as an architect. The decision was to be taken by the Tribunal after giving the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after calling for relevant records. Register of architects prepared after such an examination was described as the "first register". It may be mentioned that the Central Government had pointed such Registration Tribunal under the Chairmanship of justice P. N. Khanna of this Court and the first register was prepared for the administration of the Act and for discharging various functions under the Act, Section 3 of the Act envisages a Council of Architecture. It is a large body of about 50 people with the representation of the profession, Central Government and State Governments. Section 21 empowers the council to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education. Sections 18 and 19 empower the Council to regulate the courses for the training of architects and to enforce academic standards through the institutions training in architecture. Section 22 empowers the council to frame regulations to prescribe professional conduct, etiquette and a code of ethics f













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 Back to top