V. S. DESHPANDE, C. J. , (Oral)

( 1 ) THE respondents are registered as architects under the Architects Act, 1972 and practice assuch in the Union Territory of Delhi. They filed two writ petitionschallenging the power of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to imposerestrictions on their right to practise as architects. The restrictionsand the basis on which the restriction was imposed may be describedas below. Section 2 (25) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957d (the Act) is as below :

"licensed architect", licensed draughtsman licensed engineer . licensed plumber , licensed surveyor and licensed townplanner mean respectively a person licensed under theprovisions of this Act as an architect, draughtsman,engineer, plumber, surveyor and town planner". Since the definition of section 2 (25) contemplates that a licensedarchitect or a licensed draughtsman is to be a person who is licensedunder the provisions of the Act as an architect or a draughtsman, it isnecessary to know the provisions which empower the Corporationto licence an architect or a draughtsman under the Act. Section430 (1) of the Act states that whenever it is provided in this Act orany bye-law made thereunder that a licence or a "written permissionmay be granted for any purpose, such licence or written permissionshall be signed by the Commissioner or by the officer empowered togrant the same under this Act or the bye-laws made thereunder -. . . "there is no specific provision in the Act itself empowering the Corporation to issue licence to an architect or a draughtsman. Section481 (1) of the Act empowers the Corporation to make bye-laws forvarious matters. Part thereof empowers the making of bye-lawsrelating to buildings. Part L thereof empowers the making of byelaws relating to miscellaneous matters. Clause (7) of Part L is asfollows:

" (7) Any other matter which is to be or may be prescribedby bye-laws made under this Act or in respect of whichthis Act makes no provision or makes insufficient pro-vision and provision is, in the opinion of the Corporation,necessary for the efficient municipal government ofdelhi. "this is a residuary power to make bye-laws given to the Corporation, if the making of such bye-laws is necessary "for the efficientmunicipal government of Delhi. "

( 2 ). Whatever may have been the position before the coming intoforce of the Architects Act, 1972, what we have to consider is whetherafter the coming into force of the said Act the Delhi Municipalcorporation has any power to regulate the practice of architects bythe insistence that they must possess a licence issued by the Corporation. The Architects Act, 1972 sets out the qualification to be possessed by the persons to be registered as architects "under the saidact. It also prohibits persons who do not have such registrationfrom describing themselves as architects and also deals with disciplinary action for misconduct of architects. It is, therefore, a complete enactment the effect of which is that a person cannot call himself an architect unless he is registered under the said Act. Of course,unlike the Advocates Act, which restricts the right to practice incourts only to the advocates qualified thereunder, the Architects Actdoes not restrict the practise by architects to persons registerd lenderthe said Act. Therefore, some persons who cannot called themselvesarchitects may still be free to do the work which is ordinarily dune byarchitects and they are not dealt with by the Architects Act. Whetherthe Corporation can deal with such persons is not a question whicharsses before us. Our consideration is limited to the question whetherthe Corporation can regulate the profession and practice of architectsregistered under the Architects Act, 1972 by insisting that the architects practising in Delhi and submitting plans for construction ofbuildings for the approval of the Corporation must possess licencesissued by the Corporation.

( 3 ). The provisions in the Act on which such authority could be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document