HC stays order directing an Architect to return his Certificate

On Saturday, in a major relief for a city architect, the Bombay high court stayed an order issued by the Council of Architecture which had directed him to return the certificate of his registration within a month.

Justice AK Menon felt it necessary to exercise the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction and grant protection to architect Anand V Dhokay given the Covid-19 pandemic and harsh consequences that the order of the Council of Architecture would have on Dhokay, who would have to stop his practice.

Dhokay had moved the high court after the Council of Architecture issued the order dated June 2, 2020, which he claimed to have received on June 27, and asked him to surrender his certificate after Dhokay took up a project with Slum Redevelopment Authority (SRA).

The SRA had terminated the appointment of another architect after which Dhokay had taken up the project, which had seen the aggrieved architect approach the Council of Architecture. Dhokay’s advocate argued that the order of the Council of Architecture was issued in breach of the principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice was issued to him before passing the order.

His counsel also pointed out that the architect was being penalised since he had taken up a project with the slum redevelopment authority (SRA), upon termination of the appointment of another architect for that project, and that was the apparent cause of action for filing complaint against him.

Dhokay’s plea for interim relief was unsuccessfully opposed by the complainant, the architect whom Dhokay replaced for the SRA project. The complainant’s advocate submitted that the Council of Architecture had rightly called upon Dhokay to surrender his certificate of registration effectively preventing him from continuing his practice based on an alleged violation of Regulation 2(1)(13) and (15) of the Architects Professional Conduct Regulations, 1989.

Both the clauses prohibit architects from engaging in unfair competition. Clause 2(1) (13) prohibits architects from not supplant or attempt to supplant another architect, whereas Clause 2(1)(15) states that they shall not attempt to obtain, offer to undertake or accept the commission for which another architect has been selected or employed unless the selection, employment or agreement has been terminated and a written notice is given to the other architect.

HC has now ordered the matter to be placed for further hearing after regular court working is resumed.

Source Link