Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. Nagaresh, J.
R. Murugan – Petitioner
Versus
The Council Of Architecture, India Habitat Centre, Core 6a 1st Floor, Lodhi Road New Delhi, Represented By Its President And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 19048 of 2025
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.S.Kalkura, M.S.Kalesh, Harish Gopinath, H.Kiran, P.I.Najumal Hussain
For the Respondent: Sri.Tojan J. Vathikulam, SC
The court mandates that the Council of Architecture must respond to complaints timely, reinforcing the statutory obligation to address professional misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Architects Act, 1972 - Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 - The petitioner entered into a construction contract and submitted bills totaling Rs. 1,34,95,104.51, but payments were not recommended by the 2nd respondent, causing financial loss and interest liabilities. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Professional Misconduct - Failure of the 2nd respondent to recommend payments constitutes professional misconduct necessitating disciplinary action as per relevant regulations. (Paras 2, 3)
(C) Statutory Duty - The delayed action by the Council of Architecture on the complaint reflects its dereliction of duty, necessitating judicial intervention. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, managing partner of a builders firm, contracts with a political party for construction, but payments are delayed despite work completion.
Findings of Court:
The court directs the Council of Architecture to consider the petitioner’s complaint and take appropriate action within six months.
Issues: The main issues include the respondent's failure to recommend payments and the Council's lack of action on the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the Council of Architecture to address complaints timely, highlighting the mandatory procedural standards under the Act.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with specific directions to the 1st respondent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual obligations and payment processes (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. professional misconduct and regulatory duties (Para 3) |
| 3. court's procedural approach to statutory claims (Para 4) |
| 4. decision on complaint processing timeline (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
N. Nagaresh, J.
The petitioner, Managing Partner of M/s.PRS Builders, a registered Partnership Firm engaged in construction, entered into a contract dated 08.08.2019 with the 3rd respondent, a political party, for the construction of its State Headquarters at Thiruvananthapuram, pursuant to the work order dated 01.07.2019, wherein the 2nd respondent was appointed as the Consultant Architect and Project Management Consultant.
2. As per the contract, the petitioner was entitled to payments based on certified bills, with 60% being released directly and the remaining 40% upon the 2nd respondent’s recommendation. Though the petitioner completed most of the work and submitted eight bills between 13.02.2024 and 25.03.2025, totalling Rs. 1,34,95,104.51, the 2nd respondent failed to recommend the balance payments without assigning any reason, resulting in severe financial loss and an interest liability of Rs. 39 lakhs. Despite repeated representations to both respondents, no relief was granted.
3. The 2nd respondent’s persistent failure to fulfill his professional duties amounts to professional misconduct under the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989, warranting disciplinary action. A complaint was duly submitted to the 1st respondent-the Council of Architecture (CoA), along with supporting documents (Ext.P20), but no action was taken, which amounts to a dereliction of the CoA’s statutory duty under the Architects Act, 1972. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the 1st respondent to conduct an expeditious inquiry into the complaint and to take action against the 2nd respondent in accordance with law, contends the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
5. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 1st respondent to constitute a Committee as contemplated under Rule 35 Chapter VII of Council of Architecture Rules, 1973. The request of the petitioner is being of a statutory nature, it would be only just and proper that the complaints /representation be considered by the competent authority.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P20 and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, if necessary with notice to affected parties. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the complaints made by the petitioner. A decision on the constitution of the Committee shall be taken within a period of six months positively.
