NIRMAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

(2.) The petitioner is registered as a Supervisor for preparation of building plans, which are placed for sanctioning before the development authority. It transpires that the development authority pursuant to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of The India Instition of Architects Maharashtra Chamber Pune Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Mun. Corporation & Anr. which was modified by the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.2017, issued a general notice dated 30.3.2017 on the basis of which the petitioner's plan for sanctioning of map, are not being accepted.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that there is no restriction for the supervisor for not practising either under the Act or under the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. It was contended that without specifying any reason in writing they are not being allowed to practise their profession, which is prescribed under the Act, 197