Compliance with the resignation procedures and eligibility criteria under the Architects Act, 1972 is crucial for the validity of nominations to the Council of Architecture.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under section 226 of Constitution of India for Writ of Declaration declaring that the subsequent nominee of the sixth respondent as the nominee of the State of Tamil Nadu to the council of Architecture by the third respondent made vide letter dated 03.05.2022 as illegal, Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent dated 25.04.2022 in Ref.No.CA/46(11)/2022/Council/NMN(TN) and quash the same and Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to upload the original nomination of the Council of Architecture in its official webportal and consequentially allow the petitioner to exercise all rights as the nominee of the State of Tamil Nadu in the Council of Architecture as its member in pursuance to the nomination made by the second respondent vide communication dated 07.04.2022 in Reg. No. Nil.)

The issue involved in this writ petition falls under Architects Act, 1972 and it pertains to an elected member who has been nominated by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the fourth respondent Council on 07.04.2022, when the petitioner continued to be an elected member of the Council as on that date. Under the provision of section 6 of the Architects Act, 1972, the petitioner can be either an elected member or a nominated member, but not both.

2. Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.A.Anuradha, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3, Mr.Naveen R.Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.A.Sheik Peer learned counsel for the respondents 4 & 5 and Mr.V.Sivalingam, learned counsel for the respondent 6.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that on the date of his nomination by the State Government on 07.04.2022, he has submitted his resignation as an elected member though orally. He would also state that on 08.04.2022, he had submitted an hand written resignation to the fourth respondent Council as an elected member. 4. However, the receipt of the same has been denied by the fourth respondent Council. According to the fourth respondent Council, the petitioner submitted his resignation only on 27.04.2022 and further they would submit that the said resignation will have to be accepted and only from the date of said acceptance, the resignation comes into effect. Therefore according to the fourth respondent, the nomination sent by the State Government on 07.04.2022 nominating the petitioner as a member of the fourth respondent Council was rightly rejected under the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022 only in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 as the petitioner did not cease to be an elected member before the date of his nomination by the State Government on 07.04.2022. Further it is the contention of the fourth respondent that subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination by the State Government under the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022, the State Government on the request made by the fourth respondent Council has nominated the sixth respondent as their nominee in place of the petitioner to the fourth respondent Council and the said nomination has also been accepted by the fourth respondent Council on 06.05.2022.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022 on the following grounds:

(a) It is without jurisdiction;

(b) It is a misuse of the powers for ulterior motives; and

(c) There is no prohibition for nominating a person or for renominating a person in the Architects Act to be a member of the Council of Architecture (CoA).

6. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the fourth respondent Council wherein they have stated as follows:

(a) As an existing elected member of the Council under section 3(3)(c) of the Architects Act, 1972, the petitio