JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, CJ (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the judgement dated 5th September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the underlying writ petition being W.P.(C) 16402/2022 filed by the respondent no.1, was allowed setting aside the Report of the Disciplinary Committee along with the Minutes of the Meeting of the Appellant/Council of Architecture, suspending the respondent no.1 from practicing as an Architect for a period of twelve (12)

months.

2. The facts germane to the present appeal, shorn of unnecessary details Signature Not Verified LPA 1064/2024 Page 1 of 9 Digitally Signed are as under:-

(i) The respondent nos. 2 & 3 were appointed as Architects by the Madhya Pradesh Project Works Department (for short “MPPWD”) for designing the proposed Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University at Jabalpur and an Agreement dated 8th October, 2014 was executed between them in this regard.

(ii) Thereafter, in 2017, the Madhya Pradesh Government through the MPPWD floated an open tender for empanelling Detailed Project Report Consultants (for short “DPRC”) for any or all projects overseen by it at Jabalpur. The respondent no.1 emerged as the successful bidder and was appointed as the DPRC with the Project Implementation Unit, MPPWD for a period of one year vide Letter of Acceptance dated 1st November, 2017. It is stated that the respondent no.1 was responsible for preparing Detailed Project Reports (for short “DPR”) for projects assigned to her on the basis of the designs provided by MPPWD.

(iii) During the execution of the contract, respondent no.2/Arcop Associates informed respondent no.1 about their existing Architectural Service Agreement dated 9th October, 2014 with MPPWD for the Medical Science University project.

(iv) Subsequently, respondent no.3/Director of respondent no.2 company, filed a complaint with the appellant/Council of Architecture (for short “COA”) dated 21st June, 2019, alleging that the respondent no.1 had plagiarized their architectural designs for the project and presented them as her own work. It was also alleged that respondent no.1 had accepted the assignment despite having knowledge of their Signature Not Verified LPA 1064/2024 Page 2 of 9 Digitally Signed existing contract with MPPWD. Though the complaint was silent in its reference to the relevant regulation, ostensibly, respondent no.1 was alleged to have violated Regulation 2(1)(xv) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 (for short “Regulations, 1989”), which prohibits architects from accepting work that conflicts with existing contracts.

(v) Respondent no. 1 filed a detailed response on 9th July, 2019, to the complaint dated 21st June, 2019 received by her vide the covering letter of the appellant dated 25th June, 2019. In her response, respondent no.1 clarified that she was not the Architect for the project, but merely a Consultant to prepare the DPR by MPPWD, which she completed based on the designs provided and submitted it to the relevant authorities as per the tender awarded to her. She further clarified her lack of awareness regarding any existing agreement between MPPWD and respondent no. 2, related to the project. It is stated that on 31st August, 2021, the appellant/COA referred the said complaint to the Disciplinary Committee (for short “DC”).

(vi) The DC conducted a hearing in the matter and issued a Report dated 2nd February, 2022, finding respondent no.1 guilty of professional misconduct for violating Regulation 2(1)(x) of the Regulations, 1989.

(vii) Thereafter, the appellant/COA accepted the DC’s Report on 22nd July, 2022. Vide Minutes of Meeting dated 7th November, 2022, the appellant suspended respondent no.1 from practicing as an Architect for twelve (12) months and directed her to surrender her Certificate of Registration.

Signature Not Verified LPA 1064/2024 Page 3 of 9 Digitally Signed (viii) Aggrieved by this decision, respondent no.1 prefe