2004 (11) TMI 602 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement for architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 to obtain licenses under the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MPMC Act).
2. The authority of the Municipal Corporation to regulate licenses for architects post the enactment of the Architects Act, 1972.
3. The potential conflict or repugnancy between the Architects Act, 1972 and the MPMC Act.
4. The ability of engineers or surveyors to perform functions typically done by architects under the Architects Act, 1972.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement for Architects to Obtain Licenses under the MPMC Act:
The petitioners, who are architects, sought a declaration that they are not required to obtain licenses under the MPMC Act, arguing that the Architects Act, 1972 provides an exhaustive code for the regulation of architects. The High Court referred to the decision in *Jaswantsingh v. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad*, which held that the Municipal Corporation has no power to require architects registered under the Architects Act to obtain additional licenses under the MPMC Act. The court emphasized that the Architects Act prescribes a comprehensive regulatory framework, and thus, any additional licensing requirement under the MPMC Act would be redundant and unauthorized.

2. Authority of Municipal Corporation to Regulate Licenses Post-Enactment of the Architects Act:
The court examined whether the Municipal Corporation could still regulate licenses for architects after the enactment of the Architects Act, 1972. It was concluded that the Architects Act, being a Central legislation, provides an exhaustive code for the regulation of architects, including their qualifications and disciplinary actions. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation under the MPMC Act does not have the authority to impose additional licensing requirements on architects registered under the Architects Act.

3. Potential Conflict or Repugnancy between the Architects Act, 1972 and the MPMC Act:
The court addressed the issue of repugnancy between the two statutes, noting that the Architects Act, 1972, being a Central legislation, would prevail over the MPMC Act to the extent of any inconsistency. The court reiterated the principle that when both State and Central legislations cover the same field, the Central legislation would prevail. It was determined that the Architects Act occupies the same field as the MPMC Act concerning the regulation of architects, thus rendering the provisions of the MPMC Act, which require additional licensing, void to the extent of repugnancy.

4. Ability of Engineers or Surveyors to Perform Functions of Architects:
The court also considered whether engineers or surveyors could perform functions typically done by architects. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Architects Act, 1972 clarified that while the Act protects the title "Architect," it does not make the design, supervision, and construction of buildings an exclusive responsibility of architects. Engineers and other professionals with the necessary qualifications are not prohibited from engaging in building construction activities, provided they do not style themselves as architects. The court referenced the decision in *Smt. Meghana A.P. Desai v. Union of India*, which supported the view that both architects and engineers possess the necessary qualifications for construction and development activities. Consequently, the court held that qualified engineers could perform the work typically done by architects, and the Municipal Corporations could regulate licensing for such engineers.

Conclusion:
The petitions were partly allowed. The court declared that architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 are not required to obtain licenses under the MPMC Act and restrained the respondent Corporations from insisting on such licenses. However, the court did not accept the petitioners' argument that only registered architects could perform architectural functions, allowing qualified engineers to engage in similar activities regulated by the Corporations. The petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.