V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Indian Institute of architects filed the instant writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, namely, andhra Pradesh Health and Medical housing and Infrastructure Development corporation, in awarding Architectural and engineering Consultancy work/contract for construction of Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, to the second respondent company, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 ( the Act ). ( 2 ) THE first respondent is a government of Andhra Pradesh Enterprise engaged in the development of health and medical housing infrastructure. It issued a short tender notice No. 10/aphmhidc/ 2000-2001, dated 30-4-2001 inviting tenders from reputed "architectural and engineering consultants" with similar experience for providing "architectural and engineering consultancy" services, inter alia, for the construction of Gandhi Hospital with all necessary units covering a total plinth area of about 59,200 Sq. mtrs. , approximately valued at Rs. 4,410. 00 lakhs. The short tender notice requires the consultants applying for the said work to have minimum previous experience in construction of similar buildings of not less than 50% of the plinth area to be constructed. It appears, the second respondent submitted tender pursuant to the short tender notice dated 30-4-2001. The first respondent awarded the "architectural and engineering consultancy" service contract to the second respondent company. The petitioner having come to know this addressed a letter dated 15-6-2002 to the managing Director of the first respondent- corporation informing that the second respondent company is headed by a Civil engineer, that it is not entitled to practice architecture as per the provisions of the Act, that it misrepresented to the Government departments for rendering architectural services in an unethical manner and that awarding of any project to the second respondent company is illegal. The first respondent was also requested to cancel the agreement entered into with the second respondent company. The petitioner also sent a communication dated 6-6-2002 to the second respondent company informing that as per the provisions of the Act, Sri M. Chandrasekhar, Executive Director of the second respondent company is not entitled to practice architecture or style his company as architectural company and that the company is not entitled to practice in the field of architecture and warned to prosecute as per the provisions of the Act. After receiving the said communication, the second respondent sent reply on 20-6-2002, informing that the 2nd respondent is incorporated in order to render comprehensive consultancy services for major civil engineering projects and that they render services for projects through open/design competition and have in-house specialists, exclusive architect division headed by ms. Ranjani Varadpande, Chief Architect, who is registered as architect with Council of Architects. ( 3 ) SRI P. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the provisions of the Act in support of his contentions. He would contend that an architect who is enrolled as such and registered as architect is alone entitled to use the title as architect; that under the provisions of the Act, no person can use the title as architect and that any person contravening the provisions of Section 37 (1) of the Act is liable for punishment on first conviction with fine which may extend to rs. 500/- and subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding rs. 1,000/- or both. He strenuously pleads that Sri M. Chandrasekhar is admittedly an Engineer and, therefore, the tender of the second respondent company should not have been accepted by the first respondent corporation for rendering architectural and engineering consultancy services. The learned Counsel placed reliance on an unreported judgment of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1111 of 1999. The said writ petition was filed by the Chairman of the Indian Institute of architects, Gujarat Chapter, for quashing and setting aside the agreement entered into between the Gurajat Housing Board and M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates whereunder the latter was appointed as architect of Gotha Housing Township project. The Gujarat Housing Board appointed M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates as private architects for the said housing project. When the same was challenged before the Gujarat High Court on the ground that the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Division Bench, in the said judgment held that inclusion of M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates as consultants is not in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act as well as Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations. ( 4 ) THE petitioner or any other of its associates or any of its members are admittedly not the tenderers pursuant to the short tender notice dated 30-4-2001. ( 4 ) THE petitioner or any other of its associates or any of its members are admittedly not the tenderers pursuant to the short tender notice dated 30-4-2001. Therefore, in the strict sense, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party to challenge the action of the first respondent-Corporation in awarding the engineering consultancy contract to the second respondent-company. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner is a body constituted under the Act and it is its duty to ensure the strict enforcement of the provisions of the Act keeping in view the interest of the public as well as the interest of the registered architects. As a body constituted under the Act, it can maintain a writ petition as and when persons who are not architects impersonate as architects. The fact that the petitioner is a body constituted under the Act and is entitled to protect its members and public by itself does not give power or locus standi to question the award of contract to the second respondent. It is always open to the petitioner to take such action including the action as provided under Section 37 of the Act on any person who is impersonating as architect though he or she is not a qualified architect. In this case, the first respondent-Corporation has awarded the contract of architectural and engineering consultancy work and at the instance of a third party an agreement, which was validly entered into, cannot be set aside. No doubt, if the agreement is contrary to the provisions of the Act, as alleged, the same has to be decided in proper proceedings at the instance of the parties to the agreement, and not at the instance of third party. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition. ( 6 ) A reading of short tender notice shows that the first respondent-Corporation invited tenders from reputed architectural and engineering consultancy (emphasis supplied ). The tender reads as under: sealed tenders from the reputed Architectural and Engineering Consultants with similar experience are invited for providing architectural and Engineering Consultancy services for the following works. The values indicated against each work are approximate only. ( 7 ) FROM the above it is clear that what the Corporation required is not merely architectural consultancy, but holistic consultancy services in architecture and engineering. The values indicated against each work are approximate only. ( 7 ) FROM the above it is clear that what the Corporation required is not merely architectural consultancy, but holistic consultancy services in architecture and engineering. This is a glaring difference between this case and the case decided by the Gujarat High Court in Girish Mistry, chairman, Indian Institute of Architects v. State of Gujarat (supra ). In the said case, the Gujarat Housing Board invited applications from entitled architectural consultants only, in response to which M/s. Sandip and Prerak Associates, which was an engineering firm applied and appointed as consultant architects for the said housing project. The short tender notice issued by the first respondent-Corporation, as noticed earlier, is not merely for architectural consultancy. The tender notice clearly specifies that the selected consultants are required to undertake the work of architectural and engineering consultancy services. As seen from the reply given by the second respondent addressed to the chairman of the petitioner-Institute, the second respondent is concerned rendering the consultancy services in engineering and architecture and they have Ms. Ranjani varadpande as Chief Architect and she registered her name with the Council of architects. It cannot, therefore, be said that the contract awarded by the first respondent corporation to the second respondent company is illegal and arbitrary. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.