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 cal