9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation has the authority to impose restrictions on architects practicing in the Union Territory of Delhi. 2. Whether the Corporation can regulate the profession and practice of architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972. 3. Whether the Corporation has the power to issue licenses to architects and draughtsmen. 4. Whether the regulatory scheme imposed by the Corporation is contrary to the Architects Act, 1972. 5. The impact of the passing of the Architects Act, 1972 on the authority of the Corporation to regulate architects. Analysis: 1. The respondents, registered architects practicing in Delhi, challenged the power of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to restrict their right to practice. The Corporation's authority to license architects and draughtsmen was examined under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The Act lacked specific provisions empowering the Corporation to issue licenses to architects. The Corporation's power to make bye-laws for efficient municipal government was considered a residuary power. 2. Post the Architects Act, 1972, the issue was whether the Corporation could regulate architects' practice by requiring them to possess a license issued by the Corporation. The Architects Act outlined qualifications for architects' registration and prohibited unregistered individuals from using the title "architect." The Act did not restrict non-registered individuals from performing architectural work, leaving a gap for the Corporation to potentially regulate them. 3. The Corporation proposed bye-laws for licensing architects and draughtsmen based on existing bye-laws referencing licensed architects. The single Judge allowed the respondents' writ petitions, declaring the regulatory scheme ultra vires the Architects Act, 1972. The Corporation's actions, including resolutions and orders, were quashed, leading to the Corporation's appeal against the decision. 4. The authority of the Corporation to regulate architects' practice was analyzed in two aspects. Firstly, the Act and bye-laws' validity were questioned, and secondly, the impact of the Architects Act, 1972 on the Corporation's authority was considered. Section 502 of the Act acknowledged the Architects Act as a special law governing architects' qualifications, rendering the Corporation's regulatory powers obsolete post the Architects Act's enactment. 5. The judgment concluded that the Corporation's provisions, bye-laws, and resolutions did not affect registered architects under the Architects Act, 1972. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the Corporation lacked authority to regulate registered architects' practice and that the Architects Act governed all related aspects comprehensively.
|
