Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNERS, INDIA .....
Versus
COUNCIL OF URE & ORS. ..... Respondents
WP(C) NO.8653/2008
Decided on : 4th January, 2012
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod Gupta & Ms. Seema Rao, Advs.
Mr. Naveen R. Nath with Ms. Amrita Sharma & Mr. Darpan K.M., Advs. for R-1. Mr. Amitesh Kumar & Mr. Jatan Singh, Advs. for R-2/AICTE. Mr. Baldev Malik, Adv. for R-3/UOI.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Council of Architecture (COA) is not empowered to prescribe minimum standards of education for qualifications other than recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of Architects Act.
Headnote:
Minimum Standards of Architectural Education - Jurisdiction of Council of Architecture - Section 21, 45 of The Architects Act - The court held that the Council of Architecture (COA) is not empowered to lay down or prescribe minimum standards of education for qualifications other than recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of Architects Act. The Guidelines prescribing the minimum standards of education for certain courses were held to be beyond the powers of COA and were quashed. COA was further prohibited from prescribing minimum standards of education for any course other than the recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Guidelines for Post-Graduate Programme, 2006 published by the Council of Architecture (COA) to the extent they lay down guidelines for Town & Country Planning courses. The petitioner claimed to be the national level apex body of professionals in the field of Town & Country Planning and sought to prohibit COA from introducing/conducting the said Post-Graduate courses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that COA is not empowered to prescribe minimum standards of education for qualifications other than recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of Architects Act. The Guidelines were held to be beyond COA's powers and were quashed. COA was further prohibited from prescribing minimum standards of education for any course other than the recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule.
Issues: The main issue was whether COA had the jurisdiction to lay down guidelines for Town & Country Planning courses and prescribe minimum standards of education for certain post-graduate courses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that COA's power to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education is limited to recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of Architects Act. Since the courses in question were not recognized qualifications, COA was found to be beyond its powers in prescribing guidelines for them.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the Guidelines prescribing minimum standards of education for certain courses were quashed. COA was prohibited from prescribing minimum standards of education for any course other than the recognized qualifications mentioned in the Schedule of Architects Act. The judgment had prospective operation and did not affect students already admitted during the pendency of the petition.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Guidelines for Post-Graduate Programme, 2006 published by the respondent No.1 Council of Architecture (COA), to the extent they lay down guidelines for Town & Country Planning courses viz. M. Arch. (Urban & Regional Planning), M. Arch. (Transportation Planning & Design) and M. Arch. (Housing). The petition also seeks to prohibit the respondent No.1 COA and its affiliate Institutes and Colleges from introducing / conducting the said Post-Graduate courses. The petition yet further seeks direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 COA to operate within the framework of The Architects Act, 1972.
2. Notice of the petition was issued and on the application of the petitioner for interim relief, vide interim order dated 04.03.2009, it was directed that any admission made in respect of the courses aforesaid shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the respondent No.1 COA was also directed to communicate the order to the students seeking admission to the said courses. However in LPA No.180/2009 preferred by respondent No.1 COA, vide order dated 27.04.2009 the requirement for respondent No.1 COA to so inform the students was dispensed with. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 COA, respondent No.2 All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as well as respondent No.3 Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). The counsels have been heard.
3. The petitioner, in the year 1951, was incorporated as a company under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (equivalent of Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956) and claims to be the national level apex body of professionals in the field of Town & Country Planning, with approximately 3000 members on its rolls. The petitioner claims to have been inter alia involved in evaluation and monitoring of the course curriculum of the Universities and Schools imparting education in Town & Country Planning and also claims to have been according recognition to the various Institutions / Schools imparting such education and which recognition entitles the students clearing the said courses to become members of the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the three courses aforesaid, though titled as Master of Architecture, but the course curriculum thereof is of Town & Country Planning over which respondent No.1 COA has no jurisdiction. It is further the case of the petitioner, that the respondent No.2 AICTE is the nodal authority for recognition of any technical courses; that technical education in Section 2(g) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 is defined as meaning programmes inter alia in Architecture & Town Planning; that it is thus the respondent No.2 AICTE which is empowered to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications etc. for such courses; that the petitioner has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent No.2 AICTE for utilization by respondent No.2 AICTE of expertise of the petitioner in the field of Town & Country Planning and for assessment of proposals for establishment of new institutions or introduction of new courses in Town & Country Planning.
5. The Guidelines aforesaid, impugned in this petition, inter alia require the Universities & Institutions intending to impart Post-Graduate programmes and courses in Architecture particulars whereof are given in “Appendix A” to the Guidelines and which include the three courses aforesaid to which objection is taken to furnish a detailed syllabus, course contents, period of studies and scheme of examinations to respondent No.1 COA for consideration and approval.
6. The respondent No.1 COA in its counter affidavit has pleaded that Town & Country Planning has always been an integral part of the course curriculum fo
