[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shabbir A. Tambawala vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors. on 10 March, 2026

Author: Bharati Dangre

Bench: Bharati Dangre

2026:BHC-OS:6211-DB                                                                  WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 485 OF 2021

                            Shabbir A. Tambawala                          ]
                            1901, Tivoli, Central Enclave                 ]
                            Hiranandani Gardens, Powai,                   ]                 ... Petitioner
                            Mumbai - 400 076                              ]

                                              Versus

                            1.    State of Maharashtra                    ]
                                  Backbay Reclamation                     ]
                                  Mumbai 400 020.                         ]
                                                                          ]
                            2.    Council of Architecture                 ]
                                  Through its Secretary                   ]
                                  Having its office at                    ]
                                  Indian Habitat Center,                  ]
                                                                                        ... Respondents
                                  Core - 6A 1st Floor, Lodhi Road         ]
                                  New Delhi - 110003.                     ]
                                                                          ]
                            3.    Hafiz Contractor, Architect,            ]
                                  29 Bank Street, Fort,                   ]
                                  Mumbai 400 023.                         ]
                                                                          ]
                            4.    Suhas Joshi, Architect,                 ]
                                  29 Bank Street, Fort,                   ]
                                  Mumbai 400 023.                         ]


                            Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Senior Advocate (Through VC) with Mr.
                                  S.C. Naidu, Mustafa Kachwala, and Sakshi Sri i/b. K.
                                  Law, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                            Ms. Anupamaa Pawar, AGP for Respondent - State.
              Digitally
              signed by
              RAJESHRI
                            Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
     RAJESHRI PRAKASH
     PRAKASH AHER           Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Ernest Tuscano i/b. Mr. Anil
     AHER     Date:
              2026.03.10
              19:49:56
              +0530




                                                           Page 1 of 22

                            Rajeshri Aher

                           ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026                       ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 21:03:30 :::
                                                           WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC




      D'souza, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
 Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vidisha
      Rohira i/b. M/s. Dastur Kalambi & Associates, Advocate
      for Respondent No.4.


                               CORAM:    BHARATI DANGRE &
                                         MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
                               DATED:    10th MARCH 2026.

 JUDGMENT (PER : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.):

1. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.12.2019,

passed by the Council of Architecture in Disciplinary Enquiry

No. 332, wherein it is held that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are

not guilty of professional misconduct, resultantly dismissing

the complaint of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner had purchased 4 flats in a building

named 'Tivoli' at Powai developed by Lakeview Developers, a

company of the Hiranandani Group of Companies. The

agreements for sale of the four flats were executed on

21.02.2004 on the basis of brochures and layout plan of the

building, which included a common club house and

recreation ground for the building. Upon completion of

building and issuance of occupation certificate by the MCGM,

the Developer handed over the possession in September

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

2004. The Developer had not constructed a common club

house, as assured and indicated in the building layout plan.

On 12.05.2006, the Developer sent an Email to the Secretary

of the Society accompanied by a copy of a plan dated

11.05.2004. This Email sought permission of Society for

connecting a podium ramp to the building with the adjacent

under construction building, and it was further informed

that both the societies i.e. 'Tivoli' and 'Evita', will be sharing

the same entrance, and a common club house which was

altogether removed from the plan.

3. It is alleged that this plan was signed by Respondent

No. 4 on behalf of Respondent No. 3 as an Architect. This plan

was different from the plan which was shown to the

Petitioner while entering into the agreement to sale.

Therefore, being aggrieved by the conduct of Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4, the Petitioner has filed a complaint against

them, under Chapter VII of Council of Architecture Rules,

1973 on 24.04.2009. After hearing the parties, the complaint

of the Petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated

22.03.2010.

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

However, the Petitioner thereafter preferred another

complaint against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 22.12.2010. In

response to the second complaint, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

were called upon to file their reply. Even the second

complaint was dismissed by the Respondent No.2 vide order

dated 16.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal

and complaint, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 130 of

2013 in this Court. This Court vide its order dated

17.06.2015, has quashed and set aside both the orders dated

22.03.2010 and 16.11.2011 passed by Respondent No.2 and

directed to hear the complaints of the Petitioner on its own

merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

After the remand of the matter to Respondent No.2, the

Petitioner was informed that it was decided to refer the

matter to the Disciplinary Committee for detailed

investigation, and after considering the oral and written

submission of the parties, the disciplinary committee

submitted its report to Respondent No.2 on 16.05.2018. It

was decided by Respondent No.2 to refer the matter to the

Full Council in its 70th meeting held on 22.11.2018. On

27.07.2019, a Full Council of Respondent No.2 heard the

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter an

order came to be passed on 06.12.2019, which is impugned in

this Petition.

4. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kapadia, for

the Petitioner appeared through Video Conferencing and

submitted that, the impugned order does not reflect

application of mind by the Respondent No.2. It is the specific

case of the Petitioner that, the plan sent by the Developer

and stamped by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is forged, fabricated

and materially different from the sanctioned plan.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the Developer have

misled the Petitioner and the society by changing the plan of

the entire project without the flat purchaser's knowledge or

consent which constitute professional misconduct on the

part of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 22(2) of the

Architects Act, 1972 read with Architects (Professional

Conduct) Regulations, 1989.

5. The impugned order does not consider that there are

material differences in these two plans, the original one

contained 10 buildings, while the forged plan contained 12

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

buildings. The common club house which was part of the

original plan was altered by removing the common club

house and recreational area. The sanctioned plan contained

signatures of MCGM personnel (Authorities) in the right

hand side column, whereas in the forged plan, it was absent.

The plan was sanctioned on 11.05.2004, there could not have

been two materially different plans approved by the MCGM

on the same date and under the same file name/number.

6. He further submits that the stand of Respondent No.3

has shifted multiple times with regard to this matter. The

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not given any explanation

regarding the discrepancies in the two plans. Respondent

No.2 has not passed a reasoned order, and no finding is

recorded, about the discrepancies in sanctioned plan and

forged plan. The complaint has been disposed of by merely

directing Respondent No. 4 to apologize to the Petitioner.

Without recording any reason as to why it was decided to

absolve Respondent No.4, when in fact, the intentional

fabrication and manufacturing of a document, and an

attempt to pass that document as an original document were

writ large on the face of the record.

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

7. It is further submitted that, the order passed by the

Respondent No. 2 is contrary to the report of the Disciplinary

Committee dated 16.5.2018, wherein the Respondent Nos. 3

and 4 have been found to have acted in violation of

Regulation 2(1) (iv), (x) and (xii) of the Architects

(Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989, for purportedly

carrying out work in the absence of a written agreement.

Most importantly, the impugned order is not supported by

any reason for arriving at the conclusion that Respondent

No. 4 had inadvertently signed the forged plan.

8. It is submitted that creating and circulating a forged

plan cannot be brushed aside casually by holding it to be just

an error, since it has resulted in misleading the Petitioner.

This conduct of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 warranted strictest

action against them. Therefore, the order impugned is

required to be set aside and this Court may be pleased to hold

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 guilty of misconduct under the

provisions of Architects Professional (Conduct Regulation),

1989, and direct Respondent No.2 to remove their names

from the Register and terminate their license to practice.

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

9. Mr. Karl Tamboly, Advocate for Respondent No.3, has

resisted prayer in the Petition by contending that the

building named 'Tivoli' was completed in the year 2004.

Respondent No. 3 was an Architect and Licenced Surveyor

for the Powai Area Development Scheme Project i.e.

Lakeview Developers of the Hiranandani Group of

Companies, while Respondent No.4 was the Consultant

Architect of Hiranandani Group of Companies. Respondent

No.3 had given a Special Power of Attorney to sign and

execute layout plans and building plans or any other letter or

document, as may be required for submission to the

authorities of MMC Or MMRDA or Government body or

Authority mentioned therein for the purpose of development

of the properties belonging to the Hiranandani Group of

Companies in Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai.

Respondent No. 3 has ceased work with Lakeview Developer

on 06.03.2009 and the Power of Attorney stood terminated

since then. Respondent No. 3 had nothing to do with the

incorrect certification of the layout plan dated 24.06.2005,

since he was not aware that, any such plan was being sent via

Email to the Society by the Developer. It is pertinently

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

pointed out that, only the Petitioner has raised such a

grievance, the society has not raised any grievance against

Respondent No.3 or Respondent No. 4, for the inadvertent

mistake. No prejudice or loss is caused to the Petitioner or

the Society. Therefore, there is no substance in the challenge

raised by the Petitioner and the Writ Petition deserves to be

dismissed.

10. The Respondent No.4 led by Mr. Chetan Kapadia has

resisted the Petition by contending that the Petitioner who

had purchased 4 flats in the 'Tivoli' building forms part of

larger layout comprising of many other buildings in the

residential cum commercial scheme at Powai, developed by

the Lakeview Developers. The Tivoli Building was

constructed in accordance with the approved plan dated

03.03.2001. After the Petitioner purchased 4 flats in the

Tivoli Building on 21.02.2004, occupation certificate was

granted by the MCGM on 11.05.2004. It is submitted that

after the earlier layout plan dated 03.03.2001, the MCGM

approved an amended layout plan on 24.06.2005. It is

further submitted that two Emails were received by the

society from the Lakeview Developers requesting permission

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

to use the access from 'Tivoli' for an adjacent building,

named, 'Evita', which was then under construction. The

society also received an Email seeking permission for an

access, which would connect 'Evita' with another building

proposed to come up as, 'Tivoli-II (Vidisha)'. Pursuant to the

aforesaid request, the Managing Committee of the Tivoli

Committee passed the Resolution recording that the society

had no objection to sharing common access with the 'Evita'

building alongwith, 'Tivoli-II (Vidisha)'. It is also urged that

the club house shown in the layout plan on 03.03.2001 was

only a proposed layout, the MCGM has approved amended

layout plans on 24.06.2005 and 29.11.2006, respectively.

Therefore, there is no element of cheating or attempt to

mislead the Petitioner.

As regards the signature of the Respondent No.4 which

appeared on the plan of the building, which is alleged to be

forged is concerned, it is submitted that the clerk cum

assistant of Respondent No.4 had inadvertently stamped the

plan as 'true copy stamp of full occupation certificate of Tivoli

building', instead of copy of stamp of 'approved layout plan

dated 24.06.2005'. This was sheer inadvertence and there

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

was no intention of committing any fraud or collusion. He

has already tendered an apology for the inadvertent mistake

committed by him, hence, the Writ Petition does not deserve

any consideration.

11. Mr. P. V. Dhopatkar appearing for contesting

Respondent No.2, relying on the affidavit filed through the

Registrar-Secretary of Respondent No.2 submitted that, the

Disciplinary Committee of the Respondent Council, after

conducting several hearings of the Petitioner's aforesaid

complaint, submitted its report to the Full Council of the

Respondent No.2. The Full Council, in its 70 th Meeting held on

22.11.2018, after going through the report of Disciplinary

Committee has decided to summon both the parties i.e. the

complainant as well as the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Accordingly, both the parties appeared before the Full

Council on 27.07.2019. They were granted full opportunity of

hearing and after considering the submissions, the Full

Council passed the order on 06.12.2019. The Learned

Counsel raises a preliminary objection for the belated

challenged to the impugned order and submits that the

Petition suffers from delay and laches. It is submitted that

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

the Council dismissed the complaint only after following the

due procedure prescribed under the Architects Act, 1972 and

Rules made thereunder. It is also submitted that this is a

private contractual dispute between the complainant and the

developer for which an alternate remedy is available for

redressal of his grievance and Writ Petition would not be

maintainable. Full opportunity of hearing was given to all the

parties by Respondent No.2, there are no procedural lapses

while conducting the Disciplinary proceedings.

12. The Disciplinary Committee has rightly observed that

in absence of an agreement, it would be impossible to draw a

conclusion, on the levels of performance of omissions and

commissions of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, due to which, the

Disciplinary Committee is not in a position to adjudicate on

the merits of the case in absence of any signed agreement or

contract. There are no grounds made out for causing

interference, in the decision taken by the Respondent No. 2

Council. The Respondent No.2 is an competent expert body

consisting of the nominees of Central Government, all State

Government undertakings, Head of Architectural

Institutions, IIA, Institutions of Engineers India, these

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

Members of the body are the experts in the field, hence their

decision does not warrant any interference, unless there is

some irregularity or breach committed during the enquiry

that is obvious from the face of the record.

13. We have heard the respective counsel and we have also

perused all documents placed on record, relied upon by the

parties. The grievance of the Petitioner in short appears to be

that while entering into an agreement for sale on 21.02.2004,

the Petitioner was shown an approved layout plan, which

included a common club house and recreation ground. After

issuing the completion certificate by the Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the possession was handed

over in September 2004. The approved building plan dated

11.05.2004 accompanying the Email was received by the

society in May 2006, which did not show the common club

house, on the contrary, additional buildings were shown in

the plan. This plan according to the Petitioner is a forged

plan. Upon noticing the difference in the two plans, the

Petitioner obtained the copy of the sanctioned approved plan,

by the MCGM dated 11.05.2004, through RTI. Upon

comparing the two plans, there was material difference in

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

these two plans. The number of buildings were increased

from 10 to 12; club house was removed in the forged plan; the

recreation area and its location were altered; the sanctioned

plan bore signature of the officers, whereas it was absent in

the forged plan; and the forged plan was signed by

Respondent No. 4 on behalf of Respondent No.3.

14. Although the two complaints filed against Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed by Respondent No.2. This Court

in Writ Petition No.130 of 2013, remanded the matter to be

heard afresh. After the remand, initial hearing was

conducted by the Disciplinary Committee, and a report was

submitted in May 2018. Since a prima facie case of

professional misconduct was recorded in the report, it was

referred to the Full Council by Respondent No.2.

15. The Petitioner and the Respondents were heard by the

Full Council in its 70th meeting. After hearing the explanation

given by Respondent No. 4 about the inadvertent stamping of

plan, the Petitioner was again granted an opportunity to

rebut the submissions and finally, after deliberating over the

issue, by the majority of the Full Council, decided that there

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

was no professional misconduct, by Respondent No.3 and 4;

however, there was a mistake committed by Respondent No.4

in signing and stamping a building plan on 24.06.2005, for

which he needs to tender an apology to the Petitioner as well

as the Council, and also assure that such conduct will not be

repeated in future. By making these observations, the

complaint has been dismissed.

16. In the wake of the above facts and circumstances as

well as the documents on record, we are called upon to decide

the correctness of the decision of Respondent No.2, who is

the Apex Regulating body of the Architects in India. The

Apex Regulating body has already evaluated the case of the

Petitioner and has come to the conclusion that there is no

professional misconduct committed by the Respondent Nos. 3

and 4, however, it was directed that Respondent No.4 should

apologize to the complainant as well as the Council, and

assure that no such conduct would be repeated in future.

This decision has been challenged before this Court by

invoking powers of judicial review. The powers of this Court

for entertaining such petitions challenging the decisions of

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

statutory or regulatory authorities are very limited. It is

trite law that correctness of the decision of a statutory/quasi-

judicial authority cannot be decided by treating it as an

Appeal and re-appreciating the findings recorded by such

Authority. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited; it can

interfere in the findings only in case of an illegality

committed in the decision-making process, such as decision

is flawed due to lack of jurisdiction; or exercise of jurisdiction

not vested in such Authority. Only in case the order

impugned is irrational, arbitrary or unreasonable to such an

extent that it shocks the conscious of a normal human being

it can be interfered with by this Court.

17. In the present case when we perused the impugned

order, it is passed in the exercise of its powers conferred

under the Architects Act 1972, and the Regulations of 1982

framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 45 Sub-

clause (1) read with clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (i)

with sub-section 2 of the Architects Act, 1972, approved by

the Central Government read with Regulations of 1989. The

Council of Architect is constituted under the said Act and the

disciplinary authority is constituted under Rule 35 of the

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

Council of Architecture Rules, 1973. The Disciplinary

Committee is constituted to inquire into the professional

misconduct of an architect as provided under Rule 35 of the

Rules of 1973. The procedure to inquire into the complaints

against the Architect is provided in Rule 35 Sub-clause 3 to 8

and Rule 36. Upon completion of the inquiry, a report is to be

submitted to the Council, as provided under Rule 37, upon

receipt of such report from the Disciplinary Committee, if the

Council is of the opinion that further report is necessary, it

may call further report from such Authority and thereafter

proceed accordingly.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that there

are no procedural irregularities committed by the Council.

All the parties were afforded an opportunity to put forth

their case and after receiving the report of the disciplinary

committee, it was decided to place the complaint before the

Full Council. Even before the Full Council, all the parties were

heard, after hearing both the parties again the opportunity

was granted to the Petitioner to rebut the submissions made

by Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and only after detailed

deliberations in the matter, the majority of the Full Council

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

decided that, there is no misconduct either on part of

Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No.4. This procedure,

adopted by Respondent No.2 in no way can be faulted with

since it has proceeded in accordance with the prescribed

rules. All the parties were heard and the orders passed are in

accordance with the powers conferred on the Council of the

Architects Act 1972, and the Regulations of 1982.

18. It is well within the powers of the Council as provided in

Rule 37 (2) of Rules of 1973 to call for further report, if it is

of the opinion that further report is necessary. Therefore,

when a report dated 16.05.2018 held that the Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4 have violated Regulation No.2 (1) (iv), (x) and

(xii) of the Architects (Professional Regulations, 1989, by

reason of absence of an agreement while giving their

professional services to the Developer, was placed before the

Council. Respondent No.2 thought it fit to place it before the

Full Council for passing an order in terms of Section 30 Sub-

clause 2 of the Architect's Act, 1970. The Full Council by

majority has taken a decision. Thus, there is no irregularity

or illegality in the procedure committed by Respondent No.2,

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

while exercising its powers and passing the order which is

impugned in this Petition.

19. So far as the contention of the Petitioner that the order

impugned is not a reasoned order and a penalty should have

been imposed as provided in the Regulations is concerned,

the Full Council has arrived at a conclusion that the conduct

of Respondent No.4 of stamping of plan as a true copy of the

full occupation certificate, was an inadvertent mistake which

necessitated apology and assurance of not repeating the

same conduct in the future. While passing this order, a

finding is recorded that there is no fraud, collusion or

malafide intention in the matter. Even no particulars for

collusion have been provided by the Complainant. Therefore,

in view of the admission of the inadvertent mistake by

Respondent No.4, appropriate punishment has been

awarded. Similarly, the stand of the Respondent No.4 that

the signature was affixed by him in his personal capacity and

not in exercise of the power conferred on him by the Special

power of Attorney given to him by Respondent No.3, a finding

is recorded that there was no misuse of power by Respondent

No.4.

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

20. Thus, even on merits there is no substance in the

contention of the Petitioner that the order impugned is an

unreasoned order. The order impugned is a reasoned order

passed after hearing of parties at length and taking into

consideration the law and facts applicable to the given case.

21. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that a harsher

penalty ought to have been imposed on Respondents Nos. 3

and 4, the quantum of punishment to be imposed is always

the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Respondent

No.2, who is an expert body consisting of technical persons

appointed by the Central Government, State Government and

Institute of Architect. The opinion of Respondent No.2 being

an opinion of an expert body, are in a better position to

assess the misconduct of the Architects and to impose

appropriate penalty in proportion to the alleged misconduct.

Respondent No.2 has accordingly acted and arrived at a

conclusion that it would be sufficient if an apology is tendered

by Respondent No.4 with a request not to repeat the mistake

in future. We do not find penalty of tendering apology to be

shockingly disproportionate for the alleged misconduct,

which would warrant interference in the order impugned.

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

22. We may profitably refer to the land mark decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Ors. Vs.

P. Gunasekaran1, wherein the bounds within which the

Courts can exercise its powers of judicial review have been

stated. In paragraph no. 12, in the case of Union of India and

Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed thus:

" (12) Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.

The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings. the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting g the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

1 (2015) 2 SCC 610

Rajeshri Aher

WP 485 OF 2021,J.DOC

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion: