COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE versus THE ACADEMIC SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS (TASA) & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 14-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
349
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE
v.
THE ACADEMIC SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS (TASA) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Architects Act, 1972: ss.21, 45; Council of Architecture
(Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020
– Writ petition filed by first respondent, a society registered under
the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 having professional
architects as its members and seeking quashing of the Regulations,
2020 circulated by Communication dated 31.10.2018 and
03.12.2018 on the ground that these regulations required prior
approval of the central government u/s.45(1) of the Act and no
such approval was obtained – Appellant before the High Court also
questioned the locus standi of first Respondent – High Court allowed
the writ petition and quashed the impugned communication – Hence,
the present appeal – Held: The Council of Architecture may prescribe
minimum standards of architectural education – It is only in cases
where the Council choose to prescribe standards in the form of
regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central
Government under s.45(1) would become necessary – On the
question of locus standi, first respondent society due to the nature of
its membership, could not have been aggrieved – The first respondent
could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are
not in any way concerned – High Court erred in not addressing
itself to these important issues – Impugned order set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Both  the  communications  dated  31.10.2018
and 03.12.2018, impugned before the High Court, were not part
of any Regulations  framed  by  the  appellant  in  exercise  of  the
power conferred by Section 45(1) of the Act. The requirements
of prior approval and the notification in the official gazette in terms
of Section 45(1) of the Act, are in respect of Regulations and not
in respect of  communications such as the ones impugned  in  the
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 349
349
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
writ  petition. This is why an argument is advanced on the inter-
play between Sections 21 and 45 of the Act. [Para 9][352-B-C]
1.2 The Council of Architecture  may  prescribe  minimum
standards  of  architectural education, either by way of regulations
issued under Section 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 under Section 45(1) would become necessary [Para
15][355-C]
1.3 The 1st respondent society (writ petitioner), due to the
nature of its membership, could have been aggrieved only by the
prescriptions affecting  the  teaching  faculty.  The  1 st  respondent
could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are
not in  any way  concerned. [Para 19][356-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1320
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.06.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 34676 of 2018.
Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Ms. Lalit Mohini
Bhat, Rahul Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, K. M. Vignesh Ram, Rajeev Kumar
Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,
Ms. Preeti Rani, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Moh. Akhil, G. S. Makker, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The 1st respondent herein which is a society registered under
the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and which has as its
members, professional architects who claim to be teaching faculty in
institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on
the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing
the “Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017”
circulated by the appellant herein vide communications dated 31.10.2018
and 03.12.2018. The main and perhaps the only ground of challenge to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
the Regulations was that the Regulations required the prior approval of
the Central Government under Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972,
(in short referred to as ‘the Act’) before they are implemented and that
no such prior approval was obtained before issuing the impugned
communications.
3. The appellant herein took umbrage under Section 21 of the
Act. The appellant also questioned the locus stan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.