Writ Petition No. 5942 of 2004 filed by Shri Prince Shivaji Marathma Boarding House's House's College or Architecture, Kolhapur & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra.


20. In the light of the above observations it is obvious that the Legislature never intended to confer on the AICTE a super power undermining the status, authority and autonomous functioning of the existing statutory bodies inareas and spheres assigned to them under the respective legislations. There is nothing in the AICTE Act to suggest a legislative intention to belitle and destroy the authority or autonomy of Council of Architecture which is having its own assigned role to perform. The role of the AICTE vis-a-vis the Council of Architects is advisory and recomenadatory and as a guiding factor and thereby subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms. It is impossible to conceive that the Parliament intended to abrogate the provisions of the Architects Act embodying a complete code for architectural education, including qualifications of the architects by enacting a general provision like section 10 of the AICTE Act. It is clear that the Parliament did have before it the Architects Act when it passed AICTE Act and Parliament never meant that the provisions of the Architects Act stand pro tanto repealed by section 10 of the AICTE Act. We, therefore, hold that the provisionsofthe Architects Act are not impliedly repealedbythe enactmentof AICTE Act because in so far as the Architecture Institutions are concerned, the final authority for the purposes of fixing the normsand standards would be Council of Architecture. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order of the Deputy Director reducing the intake capacity of the petitioner college of architecture from 40 to 30. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with no order as to costs.

Ref. No. CAl28/2004/Judgement(BHC) December 09, 2004

To

  1. All Secretaries of Higher Technical Education and Director of Technical Education of States & UTs.
  2. All authorities granting recognized qualifications under section 14 of the Architects Act, 1972.
  3. All Universities offering 5 year B.Arch. Courses.
  4. All Schools/institutions/colleges imparting Architectural Education. .
  5. All authorities conducting Admission and Aptitude Test for admission to 5 year B.Arch. Courses.
  6. All the members of the Council of Architecture.

Subject : In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 5942 of 2004 filed by Shri Prince Shivaji Marathma Boarding House's House's College or Architecture, Kolhapur & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AICTE and COA (AICTE Act, 1987 Vs. Architects Act, 1972] - regulating norms and standards for architectural education - reg.

Dear Sir / Madam.

I have to inform you that a Writ Petition bearing no. 5942 of 2004 was filed by Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture, Kolhapur & Another against State of Maharashtra, All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the AICTE Act, 1987 and Council of .Architecture constituted under the Architects Act, 1972, in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. I am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of the judgment dated 81b September, 2004 delivered by The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Mr. A.P. Shah and Justice Mr. S. U. Kamdar, in the above matter. In this landmark judgment the court has ruled that the Architects Act 1972 is a Special act and the Council of Architecture is the final authority for the purpose of fixing the norms and regulating standards of architectural education in India.

The Hon'ble Court has further held that as far as Architectural Education is concerned, the Architects Act, 1972 is a special legislation and the AICTE Act is a general legislation and therefore the provisions of the AICTE Act to lay down functions for technical education generally cannot be construed to disp1ace the authority of the Council of Architecture constituted under the Architects Act, 1972. Further, the court has applied the Legal Maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" in the instant case. The court observed that the doctrine of implied repeal by a later act is not applicable as Architects Act, 1972 is a complete code in itself for registration and education of architects specificaJ1y deals with recognized qualifications for architects includes the regulation and monitoring of the course contents and standards of education. The Court has held that on combined reading of Sections 14 to 17 and Section 21of the Architects Act, 1972 leaves no manner of doubt that in the field of architectural institutions the Architects Act has been given overriding effect over the other laws.

This is for favour of your information and necessary action.

Yours faithfully,

Vinod Kumar
Registrar

Encl: As Above