11.11.2018
Sent by E-Mail and signed one by India Post for Record purpose

From

Prof. R. RAMARAJU
Director & Head,
Designed Environment Academy & Research Institute (DEAR INSTITUTE), 
Thirupainjili Road, Pandiyapuram, 
Tiruchirappalli District, Tamilnadu – 621 213.

To

Mr. R. K. OBEROI
Registrar, Council of Architecture
India Habitat Center,
Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.
E-Mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Mr. Oberoi,

Sub: illegal and irresponsible functioning of you at CoA - reg.  

I never wish to pinpoint any individual for any failure or gross violation on the collective functioning at a Public Office. But, the way you have been acting at the Council of Architecture (CoA) has been now pushing me to question your integrity and sincerity. I hope you know, you would be held responsible for the flaws and failures you have been committing at CoA as its Registrar. If you don’t correct your style of functioning within the framework of law, you would be seriously dealt with and would be taken to task at the personal level.    

This blame on you is not just made because of one or two issues, but on continuous illegal indulgences of you on many matters at many occasions during the last 3 / 4 years. Presidents and Members of CoA would come and go and they are neither permanent nor assigned full-time engagement at the Council, but you being at the Highest Statutory Post of Registrar and Secretary, you are responsible for all activities of the Council and in fact, nothing could go out of your purview. Being not only official but also a statutory custodian of CoA, the first and foremost duty of you to ensure the CoA functions within the framework of Architects Act 1972 and also to confirm every one of us from President to Member to an Architect are in order. But not only you have failed miserably but also on many occasions you are directly indulging into many illegal activities repeatedly in the name of ‘as directed by’ or ‘as decided’. 

The monthly Salary around Rs. 1.75 lakhs paid from the Architects’ Contribution is not for you to simply write Notices/Circulars /Communications to the whims and fancies of you, the vested interest group, but for you to ensure proper functioning of CoA. You are seemed to be always in routine misguiding the Elected Office Bearers and Members with wrong and selective interpretations using their limited time and presence at the Council, and thereby putting them under your clutch for your personal benefits and profits. Overall, the CoA is struggling for the past few years to come out of this unfortunate situation and as a result, important issues pertaining to the Architecture Profession as well as Education are many times left unhandled. Thus the objects of Architects Act 1972 are still to be achieved even after four decades. The IMPROPER ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE of the functioning of CoA could be easily and evidently made out from a single item that there are about 400 LITIGATIONS AT VARIOUS COURTS pending for/against CoA. Would you, being an Executive Head of CoA, justify this state of affair, while CoA holding only one agenda/business under a single Law…. but has about 400 litigations.

Personally I never keep myself out of CoA, but feel part of CoA, always insisting then the ruling Presidents and Members to settle/solve the issues on the matters of power and governance of CoA as quickly as possible over the table with the Government or come with stern decision by raising vehemently before the Judicial Forum to settle once for all, so as to ensure fair and lawful governance at CoA particularly in the matters of Architecture Education….. but never happened though 2 decades getting over. By this initiation alone, more than 2/3 of 400 Litigations could be cleared straight away. Over the period, I have now realised that the reason is with the vested interest group of you misguiding the Council, particularly the elected Office Bearers with wrong interpretations and malign views only to ensure CoA keep standing away against the Authorities including the Govt. In fact, this has resulted in highly unhealthy growth in the area of Architecture Education and not even a small step of improvement happened in the area of Profession.

Even in the matter of approval of Minimum Standards 2017, when the MHRD rejected, CoA should have immediately and strongly appealed to the Government with full justification and if it again fails, would have taken the matter to the Court pursuing there intensely to finalise it fast by emphasising the necessity/compulsion/urgency of academic events. Instead of taking all these positive, viable and legal steps, the CoA has now chosen the wrong path silently indulging into illegal activities on enforcing the Minimum Standards 2017 by a Circular that you have written on 31.10.2018. Your malafide intention is obviously seen from the way the impugned Circular was written. You have tactically and completely avoided naming the ‘Minimum Standards 1983’, though the very first statement was on an important amendment to the 1983 Regulations on Eligibility Criteria for admission to B.Arch. But on next para audaciously and shamelessly stating that Minimum Standards 2017 would be enforced for the next academic year. A simple question is that when there is a Law (1983 Regulations) in force, how dare you have overridden; under what Authority. 

I hope you know well that Section 21 of Architects Act 1972 states WHO has to prescribe the Minimum Standards; and such prescription has to be perpetually made as a LEGAL TOOL under Section 45 for enforcement. You have thus overridden the sanctity and power of the Ministry, the Central Government, and the Parliament and suo moto taken the ‘Rule of Law’ into your hands.    

I am of the opinion that for all reasonable things, the MHRD IS NOT AGAINST CoA, as it is evidently seen on granting approval to the recent proposal of CoA making an amendment on Eligibility Criteria in the Minimum Standards 1983. If so, why the same MHRD rejected the new set of Draft Minimum Standards 2017. We must understand that the MHRD IS OBJECTING ONLY WHEN THE SCHEME OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DRAWN BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ARCHITECTS ACT 1972 AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON THE MATTERS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT. For the past 12 years, who stopped the CoA from pursing the Cases to bring an end to it. There is none other than you, the vested interest group misleading the Council to have full uninterrupted autonomy of power and administration conveniently and completely away from the ‘Audit of Accountability on Performance’, though the Council considered to be a part of Central Government.

On the other hand, if at all the Council feels necessary and important to meet the current demand/urge of Architecture Institutions, only those specific matters that are required would have been addressed and made as amendments as a piecemeal approach in the 1983 Regulations and would have got approval of Government smoothly as done in the case of Eligibility Criteria. This could be a possible solution when such an unfavourable situation exists around the CoA. But, you have now taken the CoA into illegal direction creating more uncomfortable through this impugned Circular. Moreover, an interesting matter is there to be noted that there is a sudden change in your writing from the usual starting of Communication as ‘Instructed by or Directed by or as Decided’ to the next level, as evidently seen in the impugned Circular dated 31.10.2018 starting with ‘I wish’. Adoption of this change has to be ascertained whether due to the absence of President or presence of Vice President. However, in this matter, you have grossly acted not only against the Law but also against the interest of CoA by keeping it in ‘bad books’ of other Authorities including the Government. Therefore, be generous enough to act fairly and immediately by withdrawing your illegal Circular dated 31.10.2018.

You are the statutory ‘Man of Business’ preparing/writing Agenda as well as Minutes of the Meetings with all necessary notes and legal positions as you are primarily assigned for. While so, you have allowed, and/or even instigated, to take major policy decisions many times individually or by the Executive Committee going beyond its role/scope as glaringly and evidently seen as in the matters of financial levies. Thus you are the person both solely and collectively responsible for everything at CoA. 

As you are the one fully aware, there are many such flaws I can go on listing 100 and more items AGAINST YOU ON YOUR ILLEGALITIES AND IRREGULARITIES from an omission of my name from the Voters List to illegal Levies of Monies on Architectural Institutions. But your recent Circular itself is enough to stand as a better proof.

I hope this Communication would probably bring out the reality prevailing over the CoA as well as enough cautions to you personally and therefore, kindly correct yourself and act accordingly to ensure fair Governance of CoA within the framework of Law.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof. R. Ramaraju, 
Director, DEAR Institute.

For information and necessary action at their respective level, Copy mail to:

  1. The Vice President, CoA, E-Mail: [email protected]
  2. The Secretary to the Govt., DHE of MHRD, E-Mail: [email protected],[email protected],
  3. Mr. P. Sasikumar, DS (TS IV & VII), DHE of MHRD, E-Mail: [email protected] 
  4. Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Additional Secretary - T.E, the Representative of Central Government, Council Member, CoA. E-Mail:[email protected].