S BORAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seeking a direction in the nature of quo warranto ousting 2nd respondent from the post of Member, MUDA, after quashing the notification dated 20th January, 2003 bearing No. NAE:myapra:2001, vide Annexure-A, insofar as it pertains to the 2nd respondent is concerned, have filed these writ petitions.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, the 2nd respondent has been appointed by the Government as a Member to the 3rd respondent-MUDA, under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities act, 1987, in the category of "architect Member", by a notification dated 20- i -2003 vide Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent is not a qualified person in the said category; he is not a qualified Architect and he is not a registered practitioner. When this fact has been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities and requested them not to permit the 2nd respondent to continue as a member of the 3rd respondent as per the notification issued by the government appointing the 2nd respondent, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, they have not taken any action. In view of the inaction on the part of the authorities concerned, the petitioners have approached this Court, assailing the correctness of the impugned notification dated 20-1-2003 vide Annexure-A, by way of filing these writ petitions.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the appointment of the 2nd respondent as a member of the muda in the category of Architect is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on sub-section (3) (1) of Section 3, which states that;"a person having experience in architecture". Further, he placed reliance on the Architects Act, 1972. The 'architect" is defined under sub-section (a) of Section 2 as : " "architect" means a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register ". He also placed reliance on Section 14 read with Section 25 and Sections 35 and 37 of the said Act and also the Annexure-B which is the public notice issued by the Competent Authority- Registrar of Council for Architecture, regarding "beware of unqualified and unregistered persons practising as Architects". Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned notification issued by the government appointing the 2nd respondent as an Architect to the MUDA, is one without any authority of law and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act, and as such, it is liable to be set aside. '