The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian opined that if the minimum standards of architectural education are covered u/s 45(2) of The Architects Act, 1972, (‘the Act’), it would have been enough for the appellant to issue the regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45(2) alone without invoking Section 21.
Facts
The 1st respondent is a society of professional architects as members having registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which filed a writ petition praying for quashing the “Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017” circulated by the appellant. The main ground of challenge was that the Regulations required the prior approval of the Central Government u/s 45 of the Act before they are implemented and that no such prior approval was obtained before issuing the impugned communications.
The appellant herein took umbrage u/s 21 of the Act. The appellant also questioned the locus standi of the 1st respondent to challenge the impugned communications, since the communications were addressed to institutions teaching Architecture, none of which had come forward to challenge the same.
Procedural History
High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communications. Hence the petition.
Observations of the Court
Section 21 of the Act talked about the minimum standard of architectural education to be prescribed by the Council. The Bench observed that:
“If the minimum standards of architectural education are covered by clauses (e), (g) and (h), or at least by the residuary clause (j) of subsection (2) of Section 45, it would have been enough for the appellant to issue the regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45(2) alone without invoking Section 21 along with it…It is clear from the scheme of the Act that the Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued u/s 45(2) or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government u/s 45(1) would become necessary… The High Court addressed itself merely to the question of the requirement of approval of the Central Government u/s 45(1) and did not go into the question of locus standi of the 1st respondent. The High Court even overlooked the fact that none of the educational institutions imparting architectural education ever chose to challenge the communications impugned before the High Court.”
Judgment
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The writ petition filed by the 1st respondent before the High Court stood dismissed.
Case Name: Council of Architecture vs The Academic Society of Architects (TASA) & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Decided on: 14th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
