INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS A P Vs. A P HEALTH AND MEDICAL HOUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Institute of Architects filed the instant writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, namely, Andhra Pradesh Health and Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, in awarding Architectural and Engineering Consultancy work/contract for construction of Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, to the second respondent company, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 ('the Act').

(2.) The first respondent is a Government of Andhra Pradesh Enterprise engaged in the development of health and medical housing infrastructure. It issued a short tender notice No.10/APHMHIDC/ 2000-2001, dated 30-4-2001 inviting tenders from reputed "architectural and engineering consultants" with similar experience for providing "architectural and engineering consultancy" services, inter alia, for the construction of Gandhi Hospital with all necessary units covering a total plinth area of about 59,200 Sq.mtrs., approximately valued at Rs.4,410.00 lakhs. The short tender notice requires the consultants applying for the said work to have minimum previous experience in construction of similar buildings of not less than 50% of the plinth area to be constructed. It appears, the second respondent submitted tender pursuant to the short tender notice dated 30-4-2001. The first respondent awarded the "architectural and engineering consultancy" service contract to the second respondent company. The petitioner having come to know this addressed a letter dated 15-6-2002 to the Managing Director of the first respondent- Corporation informing that the second respondent company is headed by a Civil Engineer, that it is not entitled to practice architecture as per the provisions of the Act, that it misrepresented to the Government departments for rendering architectural services in an unethical manner and that awarding of any project to the second respondent company is illegal. The first respondent was also requested to cancel the agreement entered into with the second respondent company. The petitioner also sent a communication dated 6-6-2002 to the second respondent company informing that as per the provisions of the Act, Sri M. Chandrasekhar, Executive Director of the second respondent company is not entitled to practice architecture or style his company as architectural company and that the company is not entitled to practice in the field of architecture and warned to prosecute as per the provisions of the Act. After receiving the said communication, the second respondent sent reply on 20-6-2002, informing that the 2nd respondent is incorporated in order to render comprehensive consultancy services for major civil engineering projects and that they render services for projects through open/design competition and have in-house specialists, exclusive architect division headed by Ms. Ranjani Varadpande, Chief Architect, who is registered as architect with Council of Architects.

(3.) Sri P. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the provisions of the Act in support of his contentions. He would contend that an architect who is enrolled as such and registered as architect is alone entitled to use the title as architect; that under the provisions of the Act, no person can use the title as architect and that any person contravening the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act is liable for punishment on first conviction with fine which may extend to Rs.500/- and subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding Rs.1,000/- or both. He strenuously pleads that Sri M. Chandrasekhar is admittedly an Engineer and, therefore, the tender of the second respondent company should not have been accepted by the first respondent Corporation for rendering architectural and engineering consultancy services. The learned Counsel placed reliance on an unreported judgment of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1111 of 1999. The said writ petition was filed by the Chairman of the Indian Institute of Architects, Gujarat Chapter, for quashing and setting aside the agreement entered into between the Gurajat Housing Board and M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates whereunder the latter was appointed as Architect of Gotha Housing Township Project. The Gujarat Housing Board appointed M/s.Sandip and Prerak Associates as private architects for the said housing project. When the same was challenged before the Gujarat High Court on the ground that the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Division Bench, in the said judgment held that inclusion of M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates as consultants is not in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act as well as Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations.