RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the report dated 08.08.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned report') submitted by the Disciplinary Committee of respondent no.1 (the Council of Architecture - hereafter 'the Council'). The Disciplinary Committee has found the petitioner "guilty of violation of Regulation 2(1)(viii) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989". The said clause requires an Architect to maintain a high standard of integrity.

(2.) The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were commenced pursuant to a complaint dated 03.06.2015 filed by respondent no.2 (who is also an architect). Respondent No.2 had alleged that the petitioner violated the public notice dated 16.02.2015 (published on 20.02.2015) issued by the Council inasmuch as the petitioner's website also indicated that the petitioner had collaborated with various architectural and design firms (twenty in number) located all over the world. Respondent no.2 had reasoned that this implied that there was a definite financial arrangement between the clients, the petitioner and foreign collaborators which required to be inquired into. Respondent no.2 had colourfully termed the action of the petitioner in disclosing his foreign the collaborations on his website as "cocking a snook" at the Council's public notice.

(3.) The petitioner also impugns the public notice dated 16.02.2015 (which was published on 20.02.2015). However, Mr Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted the petitioner's challenge at this stage to the impugned report dated 08.08.2016. He submitted that the said report was unreasoned and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the Council submitted that the present writ petition was premature since the impugned report had not been accepted by the Council.