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 writ petition. This is why an argument is advanced on the interplay 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.