1. The petitioner is an architect. He seeks to quash Ext.P9 notice issued by the disciplinary committee of the Council of Architecture and also Ext.P7 complaint filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala in the Local Self Government (RA) Department before the disciplinary committee. He contends that the complaint made against him is not maintainable and the Secretary to Government is not an aggrieved party and has no cause of action to file such a complaint. He pleads that the various averments and allegations contained in that complaint do not come within the purview of any misconduct that could be alleged against him in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Architects Act, 1972. He also contends that the action taken by the first respondent in filing the complaint is one on the basis of a complaint by one K.Mohan, who is shown to have made Ext.P7 to the Chief Town Planner. The petitioner pleads that there is no such person.

2. After hearing the writ petition for quite some time on 24.6.2009, the following order was issued by this Court:

"This matter is heard in part.

On a complaint by one Mohan, the Government issued notice to the petitioner calling for explanation for certain matters attributed to him. Those allegations related to violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner as an Architect. It is stated that an inquiry was conducted through the Town Planning Officer. That led to tentative findings that the building in question is constructed in violation of the KMBR. Through its Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, the Government have filed a complaint against the petitioner before the disciplinary committee of the Council for Architecture, charging him with professional misconduct, the principal allegation being that he does not refute that certificates were issued by him even without visiting the site and taking the measurements. While the petitioner has certified that the construction as per the plan would be in conformity with the KMBR, the authorities have concluded now that it is not so.

While I have heard the parties on the questions raised in this writ petition for quite some time what is surprising is that when the Principal Secretary to Government in the Local Self Government Department has, in the wisdom of the Government, complained about the petitioner to the Council of Architecture, no action whatsoever is shown to have been taken against any Government servant who is responsible for granting the permit since the duties and responsibilities attached to such offices require such officials to be more vigilant than the persons who apply for permits. The choice in the wisdom of the Government appears, as at present, to be one that excludes any action against them who were instrumental in granting the permit. If an officer empowered to do a particular act under statute law in relation to grant of building permits etc. does not do it in terms thereof, or is demonstrated to have done it in violation of the laws, one way to look at it would be to hold that the person is incapable of holding that office, while the second view could be that there is a reasonable ground to apprehend and presume that the said officer has acted for extraneous considerations including those amounting to corruption. These conclusions could be excusable only in those cases where a benefit of error in judgment could be found in official work.

In the aforesaid circumstances, having regard to the plea of the petitioner that the action against him is malafide, it is appropriate that the Government places an affidavit through an officer, not below the rank of a Secretary to Government, as to why no action has been taken against the officials who are responsible for granting permit for the construction in question. Such affidavit shall be on board within three weeks.

Post on 9.7.2009".

3. Following the aforesaid order