{"id":133407,"date":"2008-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-20T15:22:22","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T09:52:22","slug":"rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, A.A. Kumbhakoni<\/div>\n
                                     - 1 -\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                    WRIT PETITION No. 971 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Rajan Lakule, Age 45,                 ]\n    Principal, Sir, J.J. College          ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    of Architecture, 78\/3, Dr. D.         ]\n    N. Road, Mumbai-400 001.              ]                   Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                    Vs.\n\n    1.\n                     \n         The Council of Architecture]\n         India Habitant Centre,           ]\n                    \n         Core 6-A, Lodhi Road,            ]\n         New Delhi 110 003.               ]\n      \n\n                                          ]\n    2.   Vinod Kumar,                     ]\n   \n\n\n\n         Council of Secretary,            ]\n         Council of Architecture,         ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Indian Inhabitant,               ]\n         Core 6-A, 1st Floor,             ]\n         Lodhi Road,                          ]\n         New Delhi 110003                     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ]\n    3.   Prakash Shewale,                 ]\n         212 Millan Industrial            ]\n         Estate, Abhyuday Nagar,          ]\n         Kala Chowky, Mumbai        ...                   Respondents<\/pre>\n
    Mr. A. V. Anturkar with S. B. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:50 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. R. A. Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr. A. V. Bukhari, Mr. Manoj<\/p>\n
    Gorkela & Mr. R. L. Nerlekar, for the Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. R. A. Rodrigues for University of Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
                             CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, &<\/p>\n
                                       A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.J.\n<\/p>\n
                                DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT [ PER : F. I. REBELLO, J.]<\/p>\n
    1.<\/p>\n
                Rule. Rule by consent heard forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The petitioner has approached this Court praying<\/p>\n
    for relief by way of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate<\/p>\n
    writ to quash and     set    aside     the     constitution           of     the<\/p>\n
    Disciplinary Committee, constituted by the respondent No.1<\/p>\n
    to   inquire into the allegations contained in letter dated 30th<\/p>\n
    January, 2008, addressed by the respondent                        No.3         to<\/p>\n
    respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        A few facts may be set out.              The petitioner is a<\/p>\n
    qualified architect and is registered with the Council of<\/p>\n
    Architecture, respondent No.1 herein.              The petitioner in the<\/p>\n
    year 1984 obtained Bachelor’s degree in the first class. He was<\/p>\n
    a Gold Medalist. In the year 2000 the petitioner obtained Post<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:50 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
    Graduate Degree of        Master   of Architecture.       In 2003         the<\/p>\n
    petitioner obtained On-Line Ph. D.        degree from Ashwood<\/p>\n
    University, America.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           According to the      petitioner, the petitioner is in<\/p>\n
    practice since 1984 and continued to do so till 2004 and was<\/p>\n
    working as an Architect at Sangli, Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji<\/p>\n
    in various hospitals, private banks and industrial tenements.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner has also done the work of designing. Till 1992<\/p>\n
    the petitioner was working      on an   individual basis and from<\/p>\n
    1992 till 1996 as part and parcel of M\/s. Chougule Lakule Patil<\/p>\n
    Pvt. Ltd. Company and was carrying on profession in that<\/p>\n
    Company. In 1996 the petitioner has again started                  working<\/p>\n
    on an individual basis.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           Before doing his Ph. D. degree from Ashwood<\/p>\n
    University, America, the petitioner approached the Mumbai<\/p>\n
    University    as well as the        Council     of Architecture i.e.<\/p>\n
    respondent No.1 for the purpose of seeking information as to<\/p>\n
    whether a Ph. D. degree can be considered on the objective<\/p>\n
    assessment of work experience, either from Mumbai University<\/p>\n
    or the respondent Council. The petitioner had                approached<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:50 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
    Ashwood      University, America          and obtained online Ph. D.\n<\/p>\n
    The same was informed to the Council of Architecture as<\/p>\n
    well as the Director of Technical Education Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Mumbai in the year 2003. From the year 2000 the petitioner<\/p>\n
    was   working      as    an Assistant      Professor            of    Sir       J.J.\n<\/p>\n
    College     of Architecture and as Professor since 2003.                       The<\/p>\n
    said selection was made through Mumbai University.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    6.          On\n                       \n                       6th   April   2004      an      advertisement               was\n                      \n    published    for    the post of Principal of Sir J.J.                College      of\n\n    Architecture.      According to the petitioner, at that time when\n      \n\n<\/pre>\n
    the advertisement was issued, the petitioner was duly qualified<\/p>\n
    in terms of the advertisement. The concerned candidate ought<\/p>\n
    to have obtained Bachelor Degree in Architecture, and also<\/p>\n
    must have obtained Master’s degree in Architecture, with a First<\/p>\n
    Class in either of the said levels and a doctorate degree or<\/p>\n
    published research work which can be considered equivalent to<\/p>\n
    Ph.D. There was also requirement of work experience of 15<\/p>\n
    years in Teaching\/Practice\/Research out of which 5 years had to<\/p>\n
    be at the level of Professor. Candidate who did snot possess<\/p>\n
    Ph.D had to have 18 years of professional experience out of<\/p>\n
    which 5 years should be at the level of professor and above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:50 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
    Candidates from practice were also eligible if they met the<\/p>\n
    requirements as set out.       Ph. D.      was not           a mandatory<\/p>\n
    condition for candidates from practice.           Even if the Ph. D.\n<\/p>\n
    degree from Ashwood University from America                     is ignored,<\/p>\n
    the petitioner     was eligible for consideration in terms of the<\/p>\n
    advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          On the petitioner applying for the said post, pursuant<\/p>\n
    to the advertisement the petitioner was called for the interview.\n<\/p>\n
    The Interview Committee consisted of Dr. Mungekar, the then<\/p>\n
    Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University;               Smt.         Snehalata<\/p>\n
    Deshmukh, the Ex-Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University; Prof.<\/p>\n
    Pasalkar,    the    Director     of     Technical       Education,          Mr.<\/p>\n
    Chandrashekhar Prabhu, and the experts in the subject, Mr.<\/p>\n
    Atul   Desai and Mr.      Sudhakar Bodake.         The petitioner was<\/p>\n
    informed by the Mumbai University on 24th June, 2004 that he<\/p>\n
    was appointed to the post of Principal of Sir J.J. College of<\/p>\n
    Architecture and accordingly from 29th June 2004                            the<\/p>\n
    petitioner is working as the Principal of Sir J.J. College of<\/p>\n
    Architecture.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          One Mr. Prakash Shewale, the respondent No.3 has<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
    filed the      complaint to     respondent No.1 Council.                 It will be<\/p>\n
    necessary       to reproduce         relevant     contents         of the        said<\/p>\n
    complaint hereunder-\n<\/p>\n
        “2.     I understand that in order to be eligible for<\/p>\n
              the post of         Principal, for       which Ph.D.             is
\n              mandatory, Prof. Rajan Lakule has managed to
\n              get an online Ph.D. Ashwood University, which<\/p>\n
              I believe is against the proper procedure                        of<\/p>\n
              completing Ph.D.         work,     which is the normal
\n              practice, followed in all the universities.                      It<\/p>\n
              appears that         in order to grab the position of
\n              Principal in the J.J.           College of Architecture,
\n              he has fraudulently & dishonestly submitted his<\/p>\n
              online Ph.D. in Architecture to the                    Mumbai<\/p>\n
              University,       as the     same is          not recognized
\n              by     Central\/State Govt. being a teacher, he
\n              should not         have restored to such unethical<\/p>\n
              practices & his procuring a fraudulent degree &
\n              submitting        the same in University           of Bombay
\n              by       posing       himself      to         be possessing<\/p>\n
              qualification of       Ph.D. though           he   does        not
\n              have      Ph.D. recognized by the             authorities        in
\n              India.     Therefore, action against Prof. Lakule
\n              is absolutely necessary in              the    interest          of
\n              architectural education otherwise this would send
\n              a wrong message to other teacher & students
\n              studying architecture will be deprived                      of a<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       – 7 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            qualified Principal       in Sir   J.J.      College         of
\n            Architecture. Further it has come to my notice<\/p>\n
            that Shri Lakule has mentioned against his name<\/p>\n
            as being holder of Ph.D. in 2003 from Ashwood
\n            University which is not a recognized qualification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Particulars of
\n     evidence, oral
\n     and documentary,
\n     if any, to
\n     substantiate<\/p>\n
     the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
                    3.    I request the Council of Architecture
\n                         to verify the Degree conferred on
\n                         Prof.    Lakule and       certify its<\/p>\n
                         authenticity and if found to be
\n                         unrecognized     then take action
\n                         against     him   for     professional
\n                         misconduct.”<\/p>\n
                         The information mentioned above is
\n                         authentic.     On going through the we
\n                         print out of the Ashwood University, it<\/p>\n
                         is abundantly clear that Prof. Lakule
\n                         obtained the Ph.D., qualification without
\n                         pursuing, undergoing and subjecting<\/p>\n
                         himself for the program in a recognized
\n                         system.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.         Respondent No.2 forwarded the complaint to the<\/p>\n
    petitioner for filing the statement of defence in the matter within<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
    40 days. The petitioner filed his reply on 21st November, 2007,<\/p>\n
    denying all the allegations. It was further pointed out that the<\/p>\n
    allegations would not constitute misconduct and the complaint<\/p>\n
    ought to be rejected out-right.   In spite of the said reply, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner received the communication informing of the setting<\/p>\n
    up of the Disciplinary Committee and that hearing would be<\/p>\n
    held   before the Disciplinary        Committee on Friday 15th<\/p>\n
    February, 2008 from 11.00 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        At this stage, we may note that a Writ Petition had<\/p>\n
    earlier been filed before this Court being Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
    179 of 2007 filed by the Registrar, Council of Architecture,<\/p>\n
    challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein to the post<\/p>\n
    of Principal of Sir J. J. College of Architecture. Minutes of the<\/p>\n
    orders were filed in the said petition on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    petitioner and also respondent No.2, whereby a Fact Finding<\/p>\n
    Committee was to be constituted to       investigate whether the<\/p>\n
    appointment of respondent No.2 as Principal was legal, valid<\/p>\n
    and whether the petitioner possess        necessary qualifications<\/p>\n
    and experience, in accordance with the advertisement dated<\/p>\n
    28th April, 2004.    The petition was disposed of in terms of<\/p>\n
    “Minutes of the Order” dated 1st February, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
    11.           Regulations have been framed by the Council of<\/p>\n
    Architecture and are, known as “the Architects Act (Professional<\/p>\n
    Misconduct) Regulations, 1989,          hereinto referred to as the<\/p>\n
    Conduct Regulations. These have been framed pursuant to the<\/p>\n
    powers conferred under section 45 of the Architects Act, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
    Nowhere in the complaint or in the show-cause notice issued<\/p>\n
    nor in the notice for hearing have respondent Nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
    specified as to    what    is the misconduct alleged against the<\/p>\n
    petitioner. However,      on query to the counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
    respondent Nos. 1 & 2, learned Counsel considering the conduct<\/p>\n
    Regulations, more specifically Regulation 3, pointed out that<\/p>\n
    violation of any of the provisions of sub-regulation (1) shall<\/p>\n
    constitute a professional misconduct in terms of sub-regulation<\/p>\n
    (3).   In so far as the petitioner is concerned, according to<\/p>\n
    counsel for respondent Nos.         1 and 2,        following are the<\/p>\n
    misconducts alleged against him, as set out in Regulation (3).\n<\/p>\n
           (viii) Maintain high standard of integrity,<\/p>\n
           (ix)   Promote the advancement of
\n                  architecture,standards of Architectural
\n                  Education, research, training and practice.\n<\/p>\n
           (x)     Conduct himself in a manner which is not
\n                   derogatory to his professional character, nor
\n                   likely to lessen the confidence of public in<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
                      the profession, nor bring architects into
\n                      dispute though not specified in the show
\n                      cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           A     reply   has   been     filed    on     behalf       of     the<\/p>\n
    respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No reply has been filed on behalf of<\/p>\n
    the respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
                 The reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.                     1<\/p>\n
    and 2 is signed by Vinod Kumar respondent No.2. The said<\/p>\n
    affidavit has not even been verified. Without going into those<\/p>\n
    technical objections, we may consider the averments therein.\n<\/p>\n
    In terms of the mandate under section 21 of the Architects<\/p>\n
    Act,   the    Council       has   framed     Minimum          Standards          of<\/p>\n
    Architectural Education       Regulations Act, 1983, by which the<\/p>\n
    minimum qualifications and experience prescribed for each post<\/p>\n
    at the degree level education are prescribed. According to<\/p>\n
    the respondent, these qualifications have been modified on 22nd<\/p>\n
    January, 2002, 20th November 2004 and 20th April, 2005. We<\/p>\n
    really would not be concerned with           the qualifications as laid<\/p>\n
    down in 2004 and 2005, as advertisement issued                           by the<\/p>\n
    Mumbai University is dated 20th April, 2004. Since 2002 it is<\/p>\n
    pointed out, Ph.D is one of the essential qualifications for<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
    the post of Principal\/Professor.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          Reference is then made to the application submitted<\/p>\n
    by the petitioner, to the University of Mumbai for the post of<\/p>\n
    Principal at Sir J.J. College of Architecture.            The claim to be<\/p>\n
    holder of Ph.D degree was, it is contended, was in order to<\/p>\n
    meet that requirement. Certain online Universities are issuing<\/p>\n
    degrees     of doctorate in Architecture, merely on payment of<\/p>\n
    money. Such universities are not recognised by any concerned<\/p>\n
    authority in India and hence               cannot be considered for<\/p>\n
    recruitment to the post of Principal. The petitioner’s degree is<\/p>\n
    one such degree, as the Ashwood University of America, is<\/p>\n
    not recognised by the respondent No.3 or concerned authority<\/p>\n
    in India.    According to     the     averments,       the petitioner had<\/p>\n
    knowingly made a representation that he was holding Ph.D.\n<\/p>\n
    degree, with a view to show his eligibility for appointment to the<\/p>\n
    post of Principal.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         The Disciplinary Committee as contemplated under<\/p>\n
    section     35   of   the   Council       of Architecture        Rules 1973<\/p>\n
    consists of three members, as provided under Rule 35(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
    The Council has         constituted       a Disciplinary          Committee<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
    consisting of only two members as according to them                       one of<\/p>\n
    the post for a specific category of member is vacant. The<\/p>\n
    said issue is the subject matter of Writ Petition in the Delhi<\/p>\n
    High Court.    The stand of the Council is that the decision to<\/p>\n
    appoint a two member committee was taken bona fide on the<\/p>\n
    basis of Doctrine of Necessity and that it              is not       in    public<\/p>\n
    interest or in the interest of the Council to indefinitely delay<\/p>\n
    the disciplinary action against
\n                        ig                     the petitioner.          In      these<\/p>\n
    circumstances it is      prayed    that     the petition ought            to    be<\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    15.       The respondent Nos.               1 and 2 have raised an<\/p>\n
    objection that this Court should not entertain the writ petition, as<\/p>\n
    there is a remedy available and petitioner can appear before<\/p>\n
    the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the respondent Nos. 1<\/p>\n
    and show cause and raise all objections which will be<\/p>\n
    considered    by   the    committee.        We    may       note      that     the<\/p>\n
    President\/Chairman of the Council himself was one of the<\/p>\n
    candidates for Selection to the post of Principal.                    Secondly<\/p>\n
    the Council    itself    was      a petitioner before            this      Court,<\/p>\n
    challenging   the appointment of the petitioner               herein in Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition No. 179 of 2007.          The matter was pursued by the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
    respondent No.1 before the Fact Finding Committee. Also<\/p>\n
    according to respondent No.2, the Disciplinary Committee has<\/p>\n
    not been constituted in terms of the Rules. Though there is a<\/p>\n
    requirement that there should be three member committee, but<\/p>\n
    the Committee constituted is of only two members. In these<\/p>\n
    circumstances, in our opinion, considering the direct interest<\/p>\n
    that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have expressed, this would be<\/p>\n
    a fit case for the Court to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    The interest expressed is not only by the Chairman\/President<\/p>\n
    but by the Council of Architecture itself. The doctrine of<\/p>\n
    necessity as explained in Institute of Chartered Accountants of<\/p>\n
    India   Vs.   L.   K.   Ratna,     A.I.R.   1987   S.C.   171  would not be<\/p>\n
    attracted. Apart from that this would be a fit case to apply the<\/p>\n
    doctrine of test of real danger of possibility in the decision<\/p>\n
    making process of the Committee as explained in Localbail<\/p>\n
    (UK) Ltd. Vs. Bayfieled Properties Ltd. & Another (2000) 1 All<\/p>\n
    E. R. 65 and the direct interest of the members of the Committee<\/p>\n
    on the issue as they are members of the Council, which has<\/p>\n
    already taken a decision on the petitioner’s degree of Doctorate<\/p>\n
    considering the challenge to the appointment of the petitioner to<\/p>\n
    the post of Principal in Writ Petition No. 179 of 2007 [See : R. V.\n<\/p>\n
    Bow   Street   Stipendary   Metropolitan   Magistrate   and   Others<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
    Vs. Ex-parte Pinochat Ugarte (No.2), (1999) 1 All ER 578.]<\/p>\n
    They have thus disqualified themselves in sitting in judgment<\/p>\n
    over the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    16.       Considering the pleadings, the question that we<\/p>\n
    are called upon to answer is whether the show-cause notice<\/p>\n
    issued to the petitioner, based on the alleged misconduct, to<\/p>\n
    appear before the Disciplinary Committee can be sustained<\/p>\n
    in law.\n<\/p>\n
              The entire case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is<\/p>\n
    that the petitioner obtained an online doctorate degree and that<\/p>\n
    this degree has not been recognised either by the Council of<\/p>\n
    Architecture or for that matter by any University. If not for that<\/p>\n
    degree,   the petitioner was ineligible to apply for selection to<\/p>\n
    the post of Principal of Sir J.J. School of Architecture. To<\/p>\n
    answer the issue we may refer to some of the documents filed<\/p>\n
    in the companion petition also, as both petitions had been heard<\/p>\n
    together. The Selection Committee of the University whose<\/p>\n
    constitution we have set out earlier was headed by the then<\/p>\n
    Vice Chancellor of the University and recommended as under-\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      – 15 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     \"The     Committee            after      interviewing\n              the candidates       on prepage                after taking\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n<\/pre>\n
              into consideration their qualifications, teaching<\/p>\n
              and research experience, publications etc.
\n              and also         their     performance               at       the
\n              interview, unanimously decided to recommend<\/p>\n
              to the Vice Chancellor.          Under Section                78<\/span>
\n              of     the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
\n              that    the following           candidate            who        is<\/p>\n
              suitable be appointed to the post of Principal,<\/p>\n
              Sir J. J. College of Architecture, University of
\n              Mumbai in       the pay-scale of Rs.16,500-450-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              20,900-500- 22,400\/-            on     probation          for a
\n              period of two years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            1) Shri Lakule Rajan G.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              This was a unanimous decision of the members of the<\/p>\n
    Committee who were present.           The recommendations of the<\/p>\n
    Committee      were   accepted     and         accordingly          a   letter     of<\/p>\n
    appointment was issued to the petitioner. Before that, on 11th<\/p>\n
    May, 2004, the Scrutiny Committee consisting of Dr. Sudhir<\/p>\n
    Panse (Convener), Director, BCUD and                    Dr. S. S. Mantha,<\/p>\n
    Dean, Faculty     of Technology       found amongst                 others,      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner, eligible along with 4 other candidates. The petitioner<\/p>\n
    had disclosed that he has a Ph.D. from Ashwood University.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
              Under Section 30 of the Architects Act, 1972, if on<\/p>\n
    receipt of a complaint made to it, the Council is of the opinion<\/p>\n
    that any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct<\/p>\n
    which, if proved, will render him unfit to practice as an architect,<\/p>\n
    the Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may be<\/p>\n
    prescribed   by rules. Section 30 of the Architects Act, 1972<\/p>\n
    reads as under-\n<\/p>\n
        “30. Procedure in inquiries relating to misconduct<\/p>\n
        (1)When on receipt of a complaint made to it, the
\n           Council is of opinion that any architect has been
\n           guilty of professional misconduct which, if proved, will<\/p>\n
           render him unfit to practice as an architect, the<\/p>\n
           Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may
\n           be prescribed by rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2)After holding the inquiry under sub-section (1) and<\/p>\n
           after hearing the architect the Council may, by order
\n           reprimand the said architect or suspend him from
\n           practice as an architect or remove his name from the<\/p>\n
           register or pass such other order as it thinks fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                     – 17 –<\/p>\n
    .         It is thus, clear     that the    professional misconduct<\/p>\n
    alleged must render him unfit to practice as an architect. The<\/p>\n
    Council if it finds him guilty, can reprimand the architect or<\/p>\n
    suspend him from practice as an architect or remove his name<\/p>\n
    from the register or pass order as it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
    17.       We may now refer to the regulations made under the<\/p>\n
    Architects Act, 1972 in the matter of qualifications for the post<\/p>\n
    of Principal.   It is
\n                      ig    the case   of    respondent Nos.           1 and 2<\/span><\/p>\n
    themselves that the Regulations, 1983 have thereafter been<\/p>\n
    modified from time to time, including on 21st February, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    A perusal of the Rules pertaining          to the post of Principal<\/p>\n
    does not in any way show that a person has to be registered<\/p>\n
    with the Council of Architecture, to be eligible to be either<\/p>\n
    appointed as a lecturer or as an Assistant        Professor or as a<\/p>\n
    Professor or as a Principal. The requirement is that he must<\/p>\n
    possess the qualification as set out therein. The degrees are<\/p>\n
    not conferred by the Council of Architecture. At the highest<\/p>\n
    considering the regulations made, for appointment to various<\/p>\n
    posts, the qualification laid down under the Architects Act and<\/p>\n
    regulations thereunder will have to be followed by the respective<\/p>\n
    universities. There is no further requirement that for the teaching<\/p>\n
    posts, a person must necessarily be registered with the Council<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
    of Architecture.    Incidentally when a person applies in the<\/p>\n
    category of “candidate from practice” they have to be registered<\/p>\n
    with the Council. Who has to examine the qualification is not<\/p>\n
    the Council of Architecture but the respective Selection<\/p>\n
    Committee of the University. It is thus only in the case of a<\/p>\n
    candidate appearing from the category of practice, does the<\/p>\n
    candidate incidentally stands      registered with Council                   of<\/p>\n
    Architecture and even in such case for appointment to the<\/p>\n
    post of Principal, there is no requirement that the candidate<\/p>\n
    must have obtained Ph.D. Degree. Thus respondent no.1 has<\/p>\n
    no control over the selection process nor does selection to the<\/p>\n
    post of Principal has any connection either direct or remote with<\/p>\n
    the practice of Profession of Architecture. Nothing has also<\/p>\n
    been placed on record by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that an<\/p>\n
    Architect if registered, requires their permission to prosecute<\/p>\n
    further studies    in any university or to apply for the post of<\/p>\n
    Principal. There is therefore, no nexus between applying for the<\/p>\n
    post of Principal and practicing the profession of Architecture.\n<\/p>\n
    18.       The other issue is, before any action for misconduct<\/p>\n
    is initiated against an architect, registered with the Council, by<\/p>\n
    way of disciplinary proceedings        for professional misconduct,<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
    the act complained of must prima facie constitute a misconduct<\/p>\n
    within the meaning of the Regulations.              In other words they<\/p>\n
    must constitute one of the misconducts as set out in Regulation<\/p>\n
    1(2).     Also considering section 30(1) such misconduct                    must<\/p>\n
    render him unfit to practice as an Architect. The complaint does<\/p>\n
    not disclose any act which renders the petitioner                       unfit to<\/p>\n
    practice. The alleged misconduct is because he had applied for<\/p>\n
    the post of Principal, based on a Ph.D. degree obtained by him<\/p>\n
    from Ashwood University, America, and as                   the said Ph.D.\n<\/p>\n
    degree is not recognised. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have<\/p>\n
    not issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner, specifying<\/p>\n
    the misconduct which he is alleged to have committed. In the<\/p>\n
    communication of October          2007      the respondent has only<\/p>\n
    forwarded the complaint made by the respondent No.3. The<\/p>\n
    petitioner thereafter has replied to the said complaint. There is<\/p>\n
    nothing on      record    to indicate     whether the reply filed was<\/p>\n
    considered by any Committee of by respondent no.2 before the<\/p>\n
    matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the<\/p>\n
    Council of Architecture. Even while referring the matter, no<\/p>\n
    misconduct has been specified or set out, which would have<\/p>\n
    enabled the petitioner to specifically answer the allegations<\/p>\n
    of      misconduct.      In   our opinion,       before a Disciplinary<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
    Committee could be constituted or        inquires      into     an act of<\/p>\n
    misconduct,    the principles of natural justice and fair play<\/p>\n
    demand, that the person against whom the inquiry is proposed<\/p>\n
    is specifically informed of the specific misconduct in terms of the<\/p>\n
    Professional Misconduct Regulation 1989. That has not been<\/p>\n
    done. No person in the absence of having knowledge of what<\/p>\n
    is the specific misconduct alleged against him, would be in a<\/p>\n
    position to answer the same, and an inquiry based on vague<\/p>\n
    allegations and\/or without prima        facie considering          whether<\/p>\n
    the complaint discloses a misconduct, in our opinion would<\/p>\n
    be violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.\n<\/p>\n
    In our opinion, on this ground alone the proceedings are liable<\/p>\n
    to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    19.       Yet another aspect of the matter, as we have seen<\/p>\n
    based on the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.                    1<\/p>\n
    and 2, is that the petitioner is sought to be charge sheeted and<\/p>\n
    an inquiry held, on the ground that he claimed selection based<\/p>\n
    on a degree which is not a recognised.            Nothing has been<\/p>\n
    pointed out to us     to   show that under the Act, Rules or<\/p>\n
    Regulations there is a bar in obtaining an online Ph.D. degree.\n<\/p>\n
    At the most the said Ph.D. Degree may not be recognised,<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
    and as such, the      candidate may not be eligible                   to     be<\/p>\n
    considered based on the said online Ph.D.                   degree. That<\/p>\n
    exercise is for the examining body or the selection Committee of<\/p>\n
    the college or university where the           petitioner         applies to<\/p>\n
    consider. In the instant case, as we have noted earlier, the<\/p>\n
    decision of Selection Committee of      the       University does not<\/p>\n
    disclose whether the petitioner was considered as a candidate<\/p>\n
    based on the Ph.D degree.\n<\/p>\n
                     ig             On the contrary, the University<\/p>\n
    under the Right to Information Act has clearly set out that the<\/p>\n
    petitioner was not selected, based on his Ph.D. degree. The<\/p>\n
    very basis therefore, on which the complaint was filed by<\/p>\n
    respondent No.3 and based upon which the respondent Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    1     and 2 issued notice and      constituted          the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
    Committee    is devoid of     substance       and consequently the<\/p>\n
    proceedings would be without jurisdiction. The petition on this<\/p>\n
    ground also is also liable to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    20.       As earlier noted and considering            section 30,           the<\/p>\n
    Misconduct must render an Architect unfit to practice as an<\/p>\n
    architect. It is not the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that<\/p>\n
    the petitioner in his capacity as an architect has done any act<\/p>\n
    which     would render      him unfit to practice in so far as<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
    professional duties as an Architect are concerned. The only<\/p>\n
    allegation is that he wanted his online Ph.D. degree to be<\/p>\n
    considered,    for selection to the post of           Principal. The<\/p>\n
    qualification prescribed by the respondent No.1, are to be<\/p>\n
    followed by the concerned University. There is no requirement<\/p>\n
    that a person should possess a degree or post-graduate or a<\/p>\n
    doctorate, which must be be recognised by the Council of<\/p>\n
    Architecture, to enable a person to apply for the post
\n                     ig                                                       of<\/p>\n
    Principal. If that be the case, the alleged misconduct if any,<\/p>\n
    would not be in the course of his professional duties and as<\/p>\n
    such, neither the regulations nor provisions off the Architects<\/p>\n
    Act would apply. On this ground also, the petition will have to<\/p>\n
    be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    21.       The issue can also be considered from another<\/p>\n
    aspect. The misconduct must be in the course of his<\/p>\n
    professional work as an Architect and the alleged misconduct<\/p>\n
    must render him unfit to practice as an Architect. The<\/p>\n
    misconduct therefore, must be related to the profession of<\/p>\n
    Architecture. At the relevant time when the petitioner applied for<\/p>\n
    the post of Principal, he was working as as professor in the Sir<\/p>\n
    J.J. College of Architecture. The application for the post of<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
    Principal was not in connection with his work in the profession of<\/p>\n
    architect. The academic post which he held had no connection<\/p>\n
    with the profession of an architect i.e. because as section 30(1)<\/p>\n
    itself notes, that if the misconduct is proved, that must render<\/p>\n
    him unfit to practice as an Architect. When a penal provision is<\/p>\n
    construed, that must be considered strictly. This is the normal<\/p>\n
    course of construction of penal provisions. The provision<\/p>\n
    therefore, regarding misconduct in the Regulations must be<\/p>\n
    strictly construed.   [ See : Glaxo   Laboratories   (I)   Ltd.   Vs.<\/p>\n
    Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut and Ors (1984) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
    1]. Once so construed in the absence of the alleged act, having<\/p>\n
    no connection with the practice of profession of an Architect, the<\/p>\n
    disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner must be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
    22        In the light of the above, the petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).\n<\/p>\n
    In the circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
              Sd\/-                                           Sd\/-\n    [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]                          [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:59:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 Bench: F.I. Rebello, A.A. Kumbhakoni – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 971 OF 2008 Rajan Lakule, Age 45, ] Principal, Sir, J.J. College ] of Architecture, 78\/3, Dr. D. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4237,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008"},"wordCount":4237,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008","name":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T09:52:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-lakule-vs-the-council-of-architecture-on-18-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajan Lakule vs The Council Of Architecture on 18 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}