9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the provisions of Section 372 of the MPMC Act and the byelaws framed thereunder and since it is necessary that the respondent Corporation/s should have effective control to deal with the cases of erring architects and in suitable cases to take disciplinary action against them, provisions of the MPMC Act should be harmoniously construed. It is urged that since the MPMC Act is covered by Entry 5 of List II and the Architects Act is referable only to Entry 26 of List III, there is no question of repugnancy between the two statutes. When a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the entries in the Central List, constitutionality of such law can be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance, if on an analysis of the provisions of the State Act, it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and the entrenchment, if any is purely incidental or inconsequential. It is also urged that there is nothing in the Architects Act to show that engineers or surveyors possessing necessary qualifications cannot discharge the functions which are also di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down by the Architects Act. It would not be open in the face of Central Legislation for the Commission under Section 372 of the Corporation Act to refuse to issue licence to an architect under the guise that Respondent No. 1 has framed Building Bye-Laws and requires qualifications and experience other than that provided by the Architects Act for issuance of licence. He would not have the power in the face of provisions regulating and controlling the conduct of the architects under the Architects Act to inquire into unfitness, through incompetency, mis-conduct or other grave reason under the guise of the power which purports to have been conferred on him by virtue of Section 372 of the Corporation Act for refusing the licence to an Architect. It is, therefore, difficult to say that the provisions of Section 372 of the Corporations Act and the Building Bye-laws which we have noticed can co-exist with the corresponding provisions of the Architects Act of 1972. 9. We have referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Reghbir v. State of Haryana (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases 210) where it was held that Article 254(1) is applicable only where the State and Central legislation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stive code, we do not think that respondent No. 1 has the power to ask the petitioners to obtain licences for working as Architects". (emphasis supplied) 4. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken a similar view in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. v. Shri Ramkumar Bharadwaj and Ors. in LPA No. 59 of 1975 decided on 2.4.1980. The Division Bench has held as follows: "The Architects Act, 1972 is a special law dealing with the qualifications to be passed by persons for being registered as Architects and restricting the terms "Architect" or "registered Architects" to such persons only. Since the possession of a registration certificate under the Architects Act, 1972 regarded by Parliament as sufficient qualification for the practice of architect and since all related questions have been dealt with in respect of architects by the said Act, it became unnecessary for the Corporation to do so thereafter. In view of Section 502 of the Act, he provisions referred to above which could be construed as authorising the Corporation to regulate the licensing of architects and draughtsman could not be so construed after coming into force of the Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, what is in issue is whether the provisions of the State enactment, though otherwise constitutionally valid, has lost its validity because the Parliament has made a legislation with a conflicting provision on legislation the same matter. If it is open to resolve the conflict between two entries in different List, viz, the Union and the State List by examining the dominant purpose and therefore the pith and substance of the two legislations there is no reason why the repugnancy between the provisions of the two legislations under different entries in the same List, viz the Concurrent List should not be resolved by scrutinising the same by the same touchstone. What is to be ascertained in each case is whether the legislations are on the same subject matter or not. In both cases the cause of conflict is the apparent identity of the subject matters. The tests for resolving it therefore cannot be different". 6. We are unable to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel. Whatever may be the position before coming into force of the Architects Act, 1972, what we have to consider is whether after coming into force of the Architects Act the Municipal Corporation constituted un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that engineers are not forbidden from designing plans for buildings and that the design, supervision and construction of buildings is not an exclusive responsibility of the architects. The Statement of Objects and Reasons states that a large variety of buildings many of extreme complexity and magnitude like multi-storeyed, office buildings, factory buildings, residential houses are being constructed each year and with this increase in building activity many unqualified persons calling themselves as architects are undertaking the construction of buildings which are uneconomical and quite frequently are unsafe, thus bringing into disrepute the profession of architects. Various organisations including the Indian Institute of Architect have repeatedly emphasized the need for statutory regulation to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as architects. With the passing of this legislation it will be unlawful for any person to designate himself as architect unless he has the requisite qualifications and experience and is registered under the Act. Clause (3) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons then recites that, "the legislation protects the title Architec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the aforementioned Clauses (1) and (3) that actually there is no substantial differentiation in the technical qualifications of Architects and Engineers and both such professionals are qualified and have the necessary knowledge and expertise to engage themselves in building construction and development activities. 9. Such interference is in our view corroborated by the fact that it seems that the Civil Engineering Courses includes subjects relating to construction and development for it is apparent from the ordinances and regulations relating to examinations in the Civil Engineering Course for the years 1982-85 made by the University of Bombay that such subjects are prescribed in the respective syllabus. In fact we find from the exhibits prepared in that respect by the petitioner Vikas Vithal Desai that there are papers for construction, testing of materials, building and drawing, surveying, building design and drawing traffic engineering and control and finally architectural town planning. These papers are prescribed for the examinations in semester III to VII. 10. In the light of the above it would appear that both the Courses of Architects and Civil Engineers have the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Architects such classification being entirely permissible as can be seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakhawant Ali v. State of Orissa (AIR 1995 C 166). The learned counsel further contended that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid possible classification for the purposes of legislation in the present case he added the classification was made to get a proper development of the land and proper construction and by requiring that the plans for development should be signed and submitted only by an Architect it is not possible to say that such classifications unreasonable and arbitrary. The learned counsel is entirely right in his submission that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. But as the Supreme Court observed in Sakhawant Acts case (above), such classification cannot be arbitrary but must rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which the classification is made. We already mentioned that it flows from the preamble and the scheme of the Town Planning Act that the scope thereof is to have a proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
