Bombay High Court
ANAND V. DHOKEYversusTHE COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE AND 3 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court quashed the suspension order, holding that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the factual record and that the petitioner’s appointment was valid, thus no breach of the professional conduct regulations occurred.
Summary
The petitioner, an architect, challenged a one‑year suspension imposed by the Council of Architecture (CoA) for alleged professional misconduct under the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989. The dispute arose from the termination of another architect (Respondent 3) from a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project and the petitioner’s subsequent appointment. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were ex‑parte, that he had been duly appointed after the termination, and that a prior Bombay High Court decision supported his position. Respondent 3 contended that the petitioner supplanted him without proper notice, violating Regulations 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv). The CoA’s Disciplinary Committee found the petitioner guilty and suspended him. The High Court examined the evidence, found the termination of Respondent 3 valid, noted that the CoA had not considered the factual record or the prior judgment, and held that the suspension order was unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner complied with the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner violated Regulation 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 by supplanting another architect without proof of termination.
- Whether the suspension order issued by the Council of Architecture is valid in view of the prior Bombay High Court judgment and the SRA approvals.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- professional misconduct
- architects
- suspension
- natural justice
- slum rehabilitation
- termination of appointment
- Council of Architecture
- regulations
- ex parte hearing
- supplanting architect
Judgment
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3970 OF 2022
Anand V. Dhokey ]
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, ]
Residing At T – 02, ]
Sundarban Co–operative Housing Society, ] …Petitioner
Plot No. 15, Rama Gosavi Marg, ]
Sector – 7, Airoli, ]
Navi Mumbai – 400 708. ]
Versus
1. The Council Of Architecture ]
Having its of;ce at India Habitat ]
Centre, ]
6A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, ]
New Delhi – 110 003. ]
2. The Disciplinary Committee of the ]
Council of Architecture having its ]
of;ce at India Habitat Centre, ] …Respondents
6A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, ]
New Delhi – 440 003. ]
3. Prasanna Shantaram Chamankar ]
of Mumbai Indian inhabitant ]
Residing at A–902, ]
Aditi Co–operative Housing Society, ]
Opp. Versova Telephone Exchange, ]
SVP Nagar, MHADA, Anadheri (West), ]
Mumbai – 400 053. ]
Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh a/w. Ms. Al;ya Diamondwala, Ms.
Trushti Talekar and Noorain Patel i/b. M/s.
Diamondwala and Co., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Digitally
signed by Mr. Jai Chhabria a/w. Ms. Taniya D’souza and Ms. Takshita
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
Singh i/b. M/s. Rashmikant and Partners, Advocate for
AHER Date:
2026.02.13
20:53:49
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
+0530
Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w. Duj Jain and Ms. Karishma Shah i/b.
Page 1 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
M/s. Kiran Jain and Co., Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State–Respondent No. 4.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 02 FEBRUARY 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) :-
1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition who is an Architect
by profession raises challenge to the order dated 2 nd June,
2020, passed by the Council of Architecture, thereby
suspending the Petitioner from his practice as an architect,
for a period of one year, and further directing him to
surrender certi;cate of registration issued by the Council of
Architecture within a period of 30 days, from the receipt of
the communication.
2. The challenge is also raised to the report dated 25 th
April, 2019, submitted by the Respondent No. 2, on the basis
of which impugned order came to be passed on the ground
that, the report submitted by the Respondent No.2 is
prepared ex-parte without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner for the alleged professional
misconduct.
3. The learned advocate Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh appearing
for the Petitioner, submits that, the Respondent No. 3 who is
also an Architect, was appointed by one Mahakali Darshan
Co-operative Housing Society and Mahakali Darshan ‘A’ Co-
operative Housing Society, as an architect for the slum-
Page 2 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
rehabilitation scheme to be implemented on the plot bearing
CTS No. 78 and 79 of village Gundavali, Andheri (west),
Mumbai in the year 2004. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(for short ‘SRA’) issued an of;ce order with regard to
streamlining the procedure for termination of earlier
Architect appointed by society/developer and to appoint new
Architect under the SRA Scheme. The of;ce order issued by
the SRA was subjected to challenge by the Respondent no 3,
in Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2014, before this Court. The said
Writ Petition was ;nally decided on 19.03.2015, holding that
the of;ce order dated 04.01.2014, was not in conJict with the
Architect's Act and the regulation made thereunder, further
holding that the relation between the Architect and
Developer/society is purely contractual in nature. Hence, the
Developer/society can give a written notice to the Architect
about termination of his/her service with regard to the SRA
Scheme.
4. The Society, for whom the Respondent No. 3 was
engaged, decided to terminate his service as an Architect for
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, in the meetings of the
Managing Committee of both the societies convened on
28.09.2014 and 05.10.2014, respectively. In furtherance of
the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing
Committee, the Respondent No. 3 was informed that his
services as an Architect are terminated due to unsatisfactory
service and irresolvable differences, with the developer vide
communicated dated 06.10.2014. This decision was also
communicated to the SRA on 28.10.2014 accompanied by the
Page 3 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
declaration cum indemnity dated 31.10.2014, indemnifying
the SRA and its of;ce bearers against any claim or loss that
may be caused due to pending claims of Respondent No. 3.
Simultaneously, a decision of the society to appoint the
Petitioner as the new Architect to carry out further work of
the SRA Scheme was communicated to the SRA on
17.10.2014. Thereafter the said society informed the
Petitioner that he has been appointed as an Architect
authorizing him to complete all the formalities for obtaining
the approval for the SRA plans, during the construction of
the building till the completion of its project, as per the
resolution passed in the meeting of the managing committee.
5. It is submitted that the Petitioner, has accepted the
offer of appointment after the termination of service of
Respondent No. 3 as an Architect. Even the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, after seeking the legal opinion
accepted the termination of Respondent No. 3 as an Architect
and appointed the Petitioner as an Architect for the same
Slum Scheme vide letter dated 26.11.2014. The Respondent
No. 3 feeling aggrieved by the termination, ;led a SC Suit No.
2842 of 2014, before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. However,
he could not obtain any favorable order, therefore he has ;led
a complaint before Respondent No. 1 for alleged professional
misconduct invoking rules of the Architects (Professional
Conduct) Regulations 1989.
It is alleged that the Petitioner has violated Regulation
No. 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv). The Respondent no. 1 forwarded
Page 4 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
a copy of the complaint to the Petitioner calling upon him to
submit his statement of defence within 15 days. The
Petitioner in response to the said notice submitted his
statement of defence to Respondent No. 1 on 13.01.2015.
6. It is the contention of the Petitioner, that though he has
submitted his statement of defence, he was not called upon
by the Respondent No. 1 for any hearing and has unilaterally
submitted a report to the Respondent No. 2. The Disciplinary
committee, held that Petitioner is found guilty for violating
Regulation No. 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv) of the Architects
(Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989.
The Petitioner was surprised when he came to know
about the report when he visited the SRA of;ce, since he did
not receive any such report from the Respondent No. 1. It is
submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 had decided to hear the
complaint alleging professional misconduct against the
Petitioner, without even issuing any notice, claiming that
notice was already issued to the Petitioner.
7. It is submitted that, the Petitioner remained present
before the Respondent no. 2 and submitted that his
appointment is con;rmed only after the termination of
service of Respondent No. 3, by strictly following the
guidelines and the regulation in that behalf. It is further
brought to the notice that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
has con;rmed the termination of Respondent No. 3 and
appointed the Petitioner to carry out further work of
rehabilitation, as per the guidelines issued under the of;ce
Page 5 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
order dated 04.01.2014. Yet ignoring all the valid grounds
raised by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 suspended the
license of the Petitioner for a period of one year by issuing
the impugned order dated 02.06.2020.
8. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the
ground that the report submitted by the Respondent No. 1
was prepared without extending any opportunity of hearing
to him. The disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate
that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has appointed the
Petitioner in place of Respondent No. 3 in accordance with
the of;ce order dated 04.01.2014, which is approved by the
Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 19.03.2015,
which is still valid and binding on the Respondents. Thus,
the ;ndings recorded are contrary to the purport of the
Regulation 2(1)(xiii) and (xv) of the Architects (Professional
Conduct) Regulations 1989.
9. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that
though the penalty imposed was to operate for a period of one
year from the date of order i.e. from 02.06.2020, it was never
implemented since he was protected by the orders passed by
this Court vide order dated 10.07.2020 by staying the effect,
operation and implementation of the impugned order dated
02.06.2020. Thus, the impugned order was never given effect
to. Hence, the challenge to the impugned order still survives.
10. Responding to the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned
advocate for Respondent No.3 submits that he was appointed
Page 6 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
as an Architect for providing architectural services for the
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, Mahakali Darshan CHS and
Mahakali Darshan “A” CHS by the resolution passed in the
General Body Meeting vide appointment orders dated
07.11.2003 and 19.01.2004. The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
was sanctioned by the SRA Authorities on 17.03.2006.
According to him, the Scheme was in dif;culty, faced with
multiple problems, during such time the Petitioner in
collusion with the builder M/s. Sunshine Builders obtained a
fabricated Resolution dated 28.09.2014 and 05.10.2014, from
the provisional and illegal Committees of the Societies,
thereby replacing the Respondent no. 3. It is alleged that
M/s. Sunshine Builders has issued a termination letter dated
06.10.2014, without giving 30 days prior notice as agreed in
his appointment letter. The builder has also executed
indemnity bond dated 30.10.2014, to indemnify the SRA for
termination of services of Respondent No.3.
11. The learned advocate submits that the Petitioner is in a
habit of Jouting the provisions of Architect Act. He is an in-
house architecture of all projects of M/s. Omkar Developers
including the Slum Rehabilitation project of Mahakali Co-
operative Housing Society. Wherever the ongoing projects
are taken over by M/s. Omkar Developers, the Petitioner
enrolls himself as an Architect, without obtaining no
objection from his predecessor, thereby violating the
provisions of Architect Act. Even in the case of Respondent
No.3, the Petitioner has adopted the same policy.
Page 7 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
Even the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, without
verifying the facts and examining the record had issued a
letter dated 26.11.2014, to the Petitioner accepting the
Supervision Memo submitted by him. He was therefore
constrained to ;le a complaint against the Petitioner for the
alleged professional misconduct, which was considered by
the Council in its 66th meeting held on 25.10.2016. Upon
being satis;ed about the prima facie case as alleged against
the Petitioner, the case of the Petitioner was referred to the
Disciplinary Committee for detailed investigations, as per the
regulations. After affording opportunity to all the parties,
the impugned order has been passed, which does not deserve
any interference.
12. Mr. Jai Chhabria appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 has opposed the prayers in the Writ Petition
contending that, the Respondent No.2 is the Disciplinary
Committee of Council of Architecture i.e. Respondent No.1.
The Disciplinary Committee is constituted under Rule 35 of
the Council of Architecture Rules, 1970. The Council of
Architecture prescribes the professional conduct, etiquette
and code of ethics for the architects. Section 30 of the said
Act also provides that, if a complaint is received by the
Council of Architecture, and a person is found guilty of
professional misconduct, it will render him un;t to practice
as an architect. Upon holding inquiry, the Council of
Architecture may by order reprimand, suspend from practice
or remove his name as an architect from the register.
Page 8 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
It is stated that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
followed the due procedure prescribed in Regulations, while
deciding the complaint of professional misconduct against
the Petitioner and all the members of the Council have
unanimously come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is
guilty of infraction of Regulation No. 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv)
of The Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989.
A notice of hearing was issued to the Petitioner for the
hearing to be conducted before the Respondent No.2 on
18.07.2018. Accordingly he did remain present on
30.07.2018. Hence, there is no substance in the allegations
that he has not received any notice. According to him, the
following acts of the Petitioner amounts to misconduct,
therefore, attract Regulation No. 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv) of
The Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989.
(i) The Petitioner has taken up the subject project on
the same day of termination of service of Respondent No.3;
(ii) When the Petitioner took up the project the SRA
had not terminated the service of Respondent No.3 on its
record;
(iii) The Petitioner has not satis;ed himself, that
services of Respondent No. 3 have been terminated before
accepting the appointment;
Page 9 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
(iv) the Petitioner has not given any notice to
Respondent No.3 about accepting his appointment by the
society, where the Respondent No.3 was already working.
Referring to the undated appointment letter of the
Petitioner, it is submitted that the said letter does not refer to
the termination of Respondent No.3. In the same manner the
acceptance of appointment by the Petitioner addressed to the
builder also does not bear any date.
Thus the Petitioner did not have any evidence before
him to satisfy himself before accepting the appointment, that
services of Respondent No.3 have been terminated by the
society and the developer. As a result, the Council of
Architects has come to a conclusion that the the Petitioner
has violated Regulation No. 2(1)(xiii) and 2(1)(xv) of The
Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989.
13. We have heard the respective counsel for the parties
and have perused the documents placed on record with their
assistance. The grievance of the Respondent No. 3 raised
before the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of
Architecture appears to be that, while he was working as an
Architect for the two SRA projects of Mahakali Darshan Co-
operative Housing Society, the Petitioner herein supplanted
him and violated the Rules of professional conduct and
regulations. The Petitioner has not inquired with the
Respondent No.3 whether his services have been terminated
and his fees has been paid by the client. Perusal of the report
of the Disciplinary Committee of Council of Architecture,
Page 10 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
dated 25.04.2019, reJects that the Respondent No. 3 had
complained that the Petitioner took the project on the same
day when his services were unilaterally terminated by the
Executive Body of the society. Petitioner has taken up the
project knowing it fully well that the Respondent No.3 was
engaged as an Architect on the said project. It was alleged
that the conduct of the Petitioner violated Regulation No.
2(1)(xv) of the Architect Conduct Regulation 1989. Though
the allegation was in respect of violation of Regulation No.
2(1)(xv), the Disciplinary Committee submitted its report
alleging violation of Regulation 2(1)(xiii) and (xv) of the
Architect (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989.
The aforementioned Regulation read thus:
“2. -- (1) Every Architect, either in practical or
employment, subject to the provisions of the Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or any other
similar rules applicable to an Architect, he shall. :-
(i) ensure that his professional activities do not
conJict with his general responsibility to
contribute to the quality of the environment and
future welfare of society.
……
……
(xiii) not supplant or attempt to supplant
another Architect,
….
Page 11 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
(xv) not attempt to obtain, offer to undertake
or accept a commission for which he knows
another Architect has been selected or employed
until he has evidence that the selection,
employment or agreement has been terminated
and he has given the previous Architect written
not that he is so doing;
Provide that in the preliminary stages of
works, the client may consult, in order to select
the Architect, as may Architects as he wants,
provided he makes payment of charges to each of
the Architects so consulted;”
14. The report of the Disciplinary Committee was placed
before the Full Council of the Council of Architecture on
25.01.2020, both the parties along with their respective
advocates were heard and after hearing the Council has come
to a unanimous decision that the Petitioner is guilty of
professional misconduct, since he took up the project for
which the complainant was already engaged, without
termination of service of the Respondent No. 3, thereby failed
to comply with the Regulation No. 2(1)(xv) of the Architect
(Professional Conduct) Regulation, 1989, which has
culminated in imposing penalty of suspension from practice
for a period of one year.
Upon perusal of the documents placed on record, we
;nd that the society Mahakali Darshan SRA Co-operative
Housing Society and Mahakali Darshan SRA–A Co-operative
Housing Society by way of Resolutions dated 28.09.2014, and
05.10.2014, respectively have resolved to terminate the
services of Respondent No. 3 and in the same meeting a
further Resolution was passed to appoint the Petitioner. The
Page 12 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
Resolution dated 28.09.2014, was received by the SRA
Authority on 30.10.2014. Similarly, the decision of the
Mahakali Darshan SRA was communicated by the developer
M/s. Sunshine Builders to the Respondent No. 3 on
06.10.2014. Simultaneously, the developer has also
addressed a communication to the SRA Authority, seeking
approval to the appointment of the Petitioner which was
received by the SRA Authority on 20.10.2014, followed with a
declaration cum indemnity issued by the developer dated
31.10.2014.
It appears that simultaneously, the Mahakali Darshan
SRA also communicated about its decision of terminating
Respondent No.3 and appointing the Petitioner to the Chief
Executive Of;cer of SRA on 17.10.2014 and the CEO SRA has
granted approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on
19.11.2014. Though the Respondent No.3 has alleged that,
the appointment order of Petitioner is undated, however,
from the contents of the communication addressed by the
Developer M/s. Sunshine Builders to the Chief Executive
Of;cer, SRA received by them on 20.10.2014, it is evident
that the Petitioner has been appointed for the two SRA
societies as an Architect vide letters dated 11.10.2014 and
09.10.2014, respectively, which falsi;es the claim of the
Respondent No. 3 that he, as well as the Petitioner have been
appointed and terminated on one and the same day. Thus, we
do not ;nd any substance in the allegations made by the
Respondent No.3, which forms basis for the impugned order.
Page 13 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer a decision
of this Court in Writ Petition No.1015 of 2014, wherein the
Respondent No. 3 herein had challenged the of;ce order
issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated
04.01.2014 contending that it is in conJict with the
provisions of Architect Act, 1972 and Rules framed
thereunder. An objection was raised by the Respondent No.3
to the of;ce order issued by the SRA on the ground that, it is
only the Council of Architecture, who can provide
Regulations for regulating the appointment or resignation/
removal of an Architect.
Turning down the challenge to the of;ce order issued
by the SRA, this Court has held as under:
“11 In any case, the said Regulations can only govern
the conduct of the Architects. The Respondent No.3
has no authority to govern the conduct of the clients of
the Architect. The relationship between the Architect
and the Developer/Co-operative Society is purely
contractual in nature. On the contrary the impugned
guidelines are in tune with the Regulation No.13.
Clause 2 of the said guidelines speci;cally provides
that the Developer has to give a written notice to the
Architect that his services with regard to the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme are terminated. The Developer
has also to submit an acknowledgment of the notice
given to the Architect before the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority. The main purpose of the said guidelines is to
Page 14 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
indemnify the Respondent No.2 in case there are any
proceedings initiated or pending on account of
termination, between an Architect and the
Developer/Co-operative Society. We ;nd no conJict
with the Regulations noti;ed by the Respondent No.3
and the impugned communication.”
Thus, in pursuance of the of;ce order dated 04.01.2014,
the Developer has terminated the service of the Respondent
No.3 in consultation of the Society and has appointed the
Petitioner, which ;nd support from the documents placed on
record. The documents placed on record clearly indicate that
the Respondent No. 3 has been terminated which was
accompanied by the indemnity and only after completing the
formalities, the SRA Authority granted approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner. All these facts have not been
gone into and recorded in the orders passed by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the order impugned becomes
vulnerable and unsustainable. While making submissions,
the learned advocate for Respondent No. 3 has submitted
that the Petitioner is in a habit of enrolling himself as an
Architect, without obtaining no objection from the previous
Architect thereby violating the provisions of Architect Act.
When we made a query, whether the Petitioner has ever
been penalized for his alleged misconducts previously, the
Respondents could not point out any such order. Hence, we
do not ;nd any substance in the aforesaid allegations made
by the Respondent No. 3.
Page 15 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
6 WP 3970 OF 2022(OS) J..DOC
16. It also needs to be appreciated that the Respondent No.
3 has also ;led a suit against the builders, SRA Authorities
and the Society in which one of the prayer is regarding
termination of notice dated 06.10.2014 and 27.10.2014. A
prayer is also made for restraining the Respondents from
appointing new Architect in his place. However, the
Respondent No.3 could not secure any favorable order and
the suit is still pending.
17. In the wake of aforementioned facts and circumstances
we ;nd that the order passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
is unsustainable, since it is passed without taking into
consideration the facts of the case, and is also contrary to the
record, it reJects non-application of mind by the Respondent
1 & 2. Thus, the order impugned is quashed and set aside.
18. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a)
and (b).
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Page 16 of 16
Rajeshri Aher
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.