Rajesh Balia, Actg. C.J.—This writ petition was preferred in 2005 in the circumstances we shall presently notice. After being heard by two learned Single Judges after admission, and once judgment was reserved but the petition was not ultimately decided and when interim relief was refused by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2007 and directed the petition to be heard in due course, this Special Appeal No.292/2007 was preferred against the order dt. 01.03.2007. 2. Looking to the nature of the controversy and urgency of decision and looking to importance of the issue raised, on the request of both the learned counsel the Division Bench passed the following order on 30.08.2007: “It is agreed by the learned Advocates appearing in this matter that the matter can be decided finally. Learned advocates for the respondents have stated before the Court that even though this appeal is filed against an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge, this Court may decide the entire controversy arising in the matter so that the question can be thrashed out at the earliest as the point involved in the matter concerns many students and their future is also dependent on the decision of this Court in this appeal. Considering the said request of the learned counsel, we deem it proper to decide the matter finally instead of asking the appellant to go back to the learned Single Judge and argue the matter. Accordingly, this appeal be listed for final disposal on 12.09.2007.” 3. In the above circumstances, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merit of writ petition itself to decide the same. 4. Facts leading to this appeal are that Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur is a University set up under the law enacted by State Legislature to set up a University at Jodhpur, under Jodhpur University Act, 1962 lateron renamed as Jai Narain Vyas University. 5. The University introduced a 5 years course for awarding a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture in the year 1999. The appellant-petitioner was admitted to the course in the very first year of the commencement of new course and completed the 5 years course in 2004 and passed successive term examination of 5 years course. After passing the course, the appellant-petitioner was granted provisional certificate of degree of Bachelor of Architecture by JNV University, Jodhpur on 05.10.2004. 6. The appellant-petitioner was admitted to the course in the very first year of the commencement of new course and completed the 5 years course in 2004 and passed successive term examination of 5 years course. After passing the course, the appellant-petitioner was granted provisional certificate of degree of Bachelor of Architecture by JNV University, Jodhpur on 05.10.2004. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for his registration as an Architect under the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972) vide his application dt. 03.12.2004 to the Indian Council of Architecture established under the Act of 1972. A reminder was also sent to the Council of Architecture for his registration. Since after acknowledging the receipt of application and reminder nothing happened. Successive reminders were issued on 15.04.2005 and 19.09.2005. The last one was by way of demand of justice. 7. The notice dt. 19.09.2005 was responded by reply dt. 30.09.2005. Relying on Section 21 of the Act of 1972, it was stated that: “In order to declare a particular B.Arch qualification as recognized qualification under the Architects Act, 1972 and the Regulation framed thereunder, the Architectural Education should be imparted in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of 1983. This Minimum Standards of Architectural Education could be ensured only by inspection from time to time by the Council of Architecture. Unless and until physical inspections are undertaken by the Council for verification/examination of all matters connected with imparting of education and maintenance of Minimum Standards of Education, the same cannot be said that the institution is imparting an architectural education leading to award of Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture carrying recognition under the Architects Act, 1972 and enlist in the Schedule of Qualification appended thereto.” 8. With the aforesaid premise it was stated that since the Council had sought information under Sec. 18 and required inspection under Sec. 19 of the Act of 1972, but the University was not cooperating, the University has been already put under “no admission” category for the last five years by the Council. Since University had failed to comply with requirement the application of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance awaiting decision of a writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court as D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4466/2001, Suresh Kumar Khemka vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., which is pending in Rajasthan High Court. 9. This led to filing of present writ petition. Since University had failed to comply with requirement the application of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance awaiting decision of a writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court as D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4466/2001, Suresh Kumar Khemka vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., which is pending in Rajasthan High Court. 9. This led to filing of present writ petition. 10. Subsequent to rejection of prayer for interim relief vide order under appeal, the respondents have submitted an Addl. Affidavit dt. 09.10.2007 that said application of petitioner appellant for registration as Architect has been rejected as per the decision of Executive Committee of the Council at its 92nd meeting held on 10.09.2007. 11. About the Writ Petition No.4466/2001, Suresh Kumar Khemka vs. State of Rajasthan, we may notice that the writ petition was received as a PIL on a latter petition dt. 10.10.2001 by one Shri Suresh Kumar Khemka, Vice President, Students Union, Faculty of Engineering, JNV University, Jodhpur against the Registrar, JNV University and Secretary, Department of Technical Education apprehending that Department of Architecture may be closed by the University. In the said writ petition, the Council of Architecture had made an application to be impleaded as party. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of vide order dt. 13.09.2005 as under:- “The only grievance raised in this petition in the form and shape of Public Interest Litigation is that there is apprehension that the University may close down the Faculty of Architecture. Mr.D.C.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that they will not close down the faculty of Architecture without any prior permission of the Court. Considering the submission and assurance given by the learned counsel for the University, we direct that the Faculty of Architecture should not be closed by the University without any prior permission of the Court. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.” 12. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since Jai Narain Vyas University is a University established by an act of State Legislature, Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture awarded by JNV University is a recognised qualification for the purpose of Act of 1972 in terms of Section 2 (d) read with Schedule annexed thereto. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since Jai Narain Vyas University is a University established by an act of State Legislature, Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture awarded by JNV University is a recognised qualification for the purpose of Act of 1972 in terms of Section 2 (d) read with Schedule annexed thereto. For the purpose of commencement of course of Architecture by any University established under the Legislative enactment, no prior permission is required under the provisions of the Act of 1972 but is a priori recognised qualification for enrolment in the register of Architects by the Council of Architecture constituted under the Act. In the case of University established under the Legislative enactment, the Council’s jurisdiction to recognise the qualification for the purpose of registration is not a pre-condition. Such a recognition can be ignored for the purpose of giving registration only if recognition flowing from the Statute is withdrawn under the provisions of Section 20 by amending the Schedule. It is further contended that amending the Schedule is exclusively in the domain of the Central Government and until the Schedule is amended in accordance with provisions of the Act of 1972 in terms of Section 17, any recognised qualification in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act is sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register of Architects. It was pointed out that under Sec. 25 a person, who is a citizen of India and if he resides or carries on the profession of architect in India and holds the recognised qualification is entitled to have his name entered in the register. On this premise it is contended that the respondent Council is not entitled to keep the application filed by the petitioner for entering his name in the register of Architects in abeyance and withhold the registration nor can it reject the same until the Bachelor’s degree in Architecture issued by the Jai Narain Vyas University is excluded from the list of recognised qualification by appropriate notification in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulation prescribed in furtherance of the Act. 13. 13. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent Council that reason stated in the aforesaid communication for keeping the application of the petitioner in abeyance and subsequent rejection of his application was justified since the Council is responsible under Sec. 21 to prescribe and maintain the minimum standard of architectural education required for granting the recognised qualifications by colleges or institutions in India, the Registrar can decline to register any person if the standard of education imparted by any college or institution do not conform to minimum standard set by the Council. The architectural education imparted by Jai Narain Vyas University has not been recognised by the Council because the University is not cooperating in providing the inspection and furnishing of information to the Council as has been demanded by the Council in terms of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act of 1972. In the opinion of the Registrar the education imparted by the University does not accord with the minimum standard of the Architectural education prescribed by the Council and until the Council is satisfied about the standard of education imparted by the Jai Narain Vyas University, the Registrar had necessary authority to decline to register the candidate in terms of Section 26 (2) read with Section 21 of the Act. 14. Learned counsel also stressed that though under Entry 32 in the List II of Seventh Schedule setting up of a University and providing for its functioning may be in the exclusive domain of the State Legislation but under Entry 66 of List I Co-ordination and determination of standard in the Institutions of higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament to provide for the same by statutory provisions. It was urged that since Architects Act, 1972 is an Act enacted by the Parliament, it is within the domain of the Act of 1972 to set up a Council to prescribe minimum standard of education in architecture, which the Council has prescribed and, therefore, to ensure adherence to that and control and regulate the same is within the domain of the Council. Learned counsel was at pains to explain the difference in two legislative fields. 15. His contention was to the extent that notwithstanding a qualification of B.Arch. Learned counsel was at pains to explain the difference in two legislative fields. 15. His contention was to the extent that notwithstanding a qualification of B.Arch. may be recognised qualification in terms of Section 2(d) read with Schedule, the Council has jurisdiction to deny registration of any person holding B.Arch. degree from any institution included in the Schedule even during the period of its continuance in the Schedule to fall within recognised qualification by holding its own opinion about minimum standard of education imparted by the institution. He also went on to contend that in view of these provisions unless the approval of the Council is obtained, no course in architecture education can be commenced by any institution including the University established by a Statute after the commencement of the Act of 1972. He relied on the following decisions of Supreme Court: 1. Baldev Raj Sharma vs. Bar Council of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1541 . 2. Union of India & Ors. vs. Shah Goverdhan L.Kabra Teachers’ College, 2002 (8) SCC 228 . 3. Bharti Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2004) 11 SCC 755 . 4. Sanjeev Gupta vs. U.O.I., 2005 (1) SCC 45 . 5. Prof. Yashpal & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2005 (5) SCC 420. 6. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. S.V.Bratheep & Ors., 2004 (4) SCC 513 . 7. Medical Council of India vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Ors., 2004 (6) SCC 76 . 8. Dental Council of India vs. Subharti KKB Charitable Trust & Anr., 2001 (5) SCC 486 . 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined that the question of demarcation of legislative powers under List I and List II has no bearing on the controversy raised in this petition inasmuch as no question has been raised about repugnancy between the two legislations enacted by respective legislatures within their exclusive field of legislative power. He contends that the petitioner is seeking relief only in terms of Act of 1972 not outside it. The question is only to interpret the provisions of the Act of 1972 enacted by the Parliament whether it authorises Registrar not to grant registration in the case of B.Arch. Degree given by a University established under a legislative enactment? 17. He contends that the petitioner is seeking relief only in terms of Act of 1972 not outside it. The question is only to interpret the provisions of the Act of 1972 enacted by the Parliament whether it authorises Registrar not to grant registration in the case of B.Arch. Degree given by a University established under a legislative enactment? 17. It is not in dispute that Jai Narain Vyas University is a University established under a legislation enacted by Rajasthan Legislature and therefore, the petitioner contends that in view of the provisions of the Act, degree granted by such University in B. Arch. do not call for any further recognition by any process of making application or otherwise from the Council and it is not required that its name be further included in the list of recognised qualification. The Council has only jurisdiction to make a report about standard of education imparted and infrastructure available in the case of any qualification included in the Schedule to the appropriate Government. Thereafter it is for the Central Government to take decision after holding such further inquiry as it deems fit whether to withdraw recognition. If the Central Government so decides, it can do so by amending Schedule by inserting therein that degrees awarded by any concerned institution is recognised only if obtained upto or before specified date. Until that is done the degree granted by the University in B.Arch. is a recognised qualification entitling the holder of such qualification to be enrolled in the register of Architects maintained by the Council. It is in this context a contention has been raised that the respondents are obstructing the petitioner to carry on the profession of Architecture which he is entitled to take up and which vitally affects his freedom to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). 18. We have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions raised before us. 19. Before proceeding further, we may deal with last question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in the first instance. 18. We have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions raised before us. 19. Before proceeding further, we may deal with last question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in the first instance. Apparently, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission that no question about repugnancy between the provisions of two enactments or the regulations framed by the Council and any provision of the State Legislation or Ordinance or Statute framed by the Jai Narain Vyas University having been raised, the question of examining the field of legislature of the two independent statutes really do not invite attention and the real question is whether in view of the provisions of the Act of 1972, the respondent Council and its Registrar has necessary power to withhold the registration of a candidate or reject such an application for registration, who holds B.Arch. Degree from a University established by a legislative enactment unless such recognition is withdrawn and is excluded from the List of recognised qualification by amendment in the Schedule in accordance with procedure laid down in the Act. Therefore, we need not dwell on this issue any further. 20. This takes us to notice relevant provisions of the Act of 1972. Section 2 is the definition clause and it defines recognised qualification under Sub-clause (d) as under:- “(d) “recognised qualification” means any qualification in architecture for the time being included in the schedule or notified under Sec. 15.” 21. Apparently under the Act the recognised qualification is either one which is included in the Schedule or is one notified under Sec. 15. This takes us to notice Section 15 which provides that:- “Central Government may, after consultation with the Council, direct by notification in the Official Gazette, that an architectural qualification granted by any University or other institutions in any country outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of architectural qualification is not in force, shall be recognised qualification for the purpose of this Act or, shall be so only when granted after a specified date or before a specified date.” 22. Under proviso (1) of Section 15 before issuing any Notification notifying any qualification as a recognised qualification under Sec. 15, the Council is required to be consulted and until the Council is constituted, the expert committee set up under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 is required to be consulted. 23. Thus, considering the definition and the provisions of Section 15 under which alone the notification of recognising any qualification is required to be issued clearly indicates the division of two types of recognised qualifications under the Act. Section 15 deals exclusively with recognition of qualification vide notification which are granted by University or other institutions situated outside India, in a country with which India does not have scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of architectural qualification. In other words, where a University or institution set up out of India in a country with which India has entered into a reciprocal agreement, the recognition of architectural qualification from such institution is to accord with the scheme of reciprocity, otherwise the qualification in architecture granted by the foreign institution in order to be recognised in India must be under the notification issued by Central Government after consultation with the Council. Section 15 has no application to qualification granted by any College, Institution or University in India. 24. Apart from Section 15, which obviously relates to qualification issued by foreign institution, the qualification issued by any college, University or institution in India is a recognised qualification only if it is included in the Schedule appended to the Act of 1972 either along with the enactment or subsequently by amendment of the schedule by the Central Government under Sec. 16. Another provision in this connection which requires consideration is Section 14, which needs to be noticed in extenso, which reads as under:- “14. Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in India.- (1) The qualifications included in the Schedule or notified under Sec. 15 shall be recognised qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Another provision in this connection which requires consideration is Section 14, which needs to be noticed in extenso, which reads as under:- “14. Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in India.- (1) The qualifications included in the Schedule or notified under Sec. 15 shall be recognised qualifications for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any authority in India which grants an architectural qualification not included in the Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consultation with the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the Schedule against such architectural qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised qualification only when granted after a specified date: Provided that until the first Council is constituted, the Central Government shall, before issuing any notification as aforesaid, consult an expert committee consisting of three members to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 25. Analysis of aforesaid provisions indicates that qualifications included in the Schedule are mandated to be recognised qualification for the purpose of this Act. In other words, about them no question can be raised except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Secondly, it also envisages that any authority in India which grants the Architectural qualification not included in the schedule and desirous of recognition of its qualification is to apply to the Central Government to have such recognitions. If such an application is made to the Central Government. It is then for the Central Government after consultation with the Council by Notification in the Official Gazette to amend the schedule so as to include such qualification therein. Significantly when a Notification is issued under Sec. 14 (2) for adding an entry in the schedule by amending it, such Notification has also to mention that it shall be recognised only when granted after a specified date that is to say while issuing a Notification under Sec. 14(2), the Central Government has to specify a date to indicate that the qualification granted after such date only shall be recognised if granted by such institutions included in Schedule by issuing a Notification in that regard. It is not envisaged that all qualifications given by such institution at any time prior to or after the Notification shall automatically recognised in the case of amendment of Schedule under Sec. 14(2). 26. This provision has striking similarity of requirement with the provision which permits withdrawal of recognition which already existed in the Schedule or under Notification issued under Sec. 15. Specification of such date with effect from which the recognised qualification is withdrawn is equally essential under Sec. 20 so as to ensure that all recognised qualifications under the Schedule are not automatically derecongnised on withdrawal of its qualification by its exclusion from the Schedule by amendment. Therefore, continuance of recognition once the qualification falls within the definition of recognised qualification or grant of recognition of qualification is an essential part of consideration in amending the Schedule by adding new qualification or by withdrawing already recognised qualification. This indicates that once the qualification is included in the Schedule, its status as recognised qualification for the purposes of Act continues until amendment of the Schedule by the Central Government. 27. Section 14 also reveals important feature of the Scheme of Act of 1972, unlike in the case of other Statutes governing professional qualifications, in that the power of recognising any course not already recognised by inclusion in the Schedule vest in the Central Government and in none else. Mere fact that Central Government has to consult the Council before recognising any course as a recognised qualification by amending the Schedule cannot detract from the fact that ultimate decision to recognise a qualification or not to recognise a qualification vest in the Central Government. It also manifests that expression of recognition of any qualification not included in the Schedule is expressed only by amending the Schedule. So also power to withdraw existing recognition also ultimately vest in Central Govt. And its manifestation has also to be by amending the Schedule. Council has not been given the ultimate authority over maintaining link between standard of education imparted in any institution and its recognition. This authority vest in Central Govt. Alone. This will further be clear while considering Section 20 which we shall notice shortly. 28. If in the light of these provisions, one sees the entry in the Schedule, the distinction between Entry 1 in the Schedule and other entries becomes very clear. This authority vest in Central Govt. Alone. This will further be clear while considering Section 20 which we shall notice shortly. 28. If in the light of these provisions, one sees the entry in the Schedule, the distinction between Entry 1 in the Schedule and other entries becomes very clear. Entry 1 in the schedule reads as under:- “1. Bachelor Degree in Architecture awarded by Indian University established by an Act of the Central or State Legislature.” 29. Entry 1 clearly indicates recognition of qualification in Architecture conferred by Universities as a class irrespective of the date of its setting up or the date of commencement of any course of qualification by such Universities. Bachelor’s degree in Architecture (B.Arch) by Universities established by an Act of Central or State Legislature is a recognised qualification, a priori vigore. In contrast, all other entries in the Schedule are referable to individual institutions or colleges imparting education in B.Arch. 30. Apparently, no other view is possible on reading of Section 2 (a) with Schedule that a B.Arch degree awarded by any University established by an Act of Central or State Legislature automatically falls within the recognised qualification irrespective of date when such University had commenced or commences a course of Architecture unless it can be read from any other provision of the Act that a University established by law before commencing a course for awarding a degree in B.Arch. is to seek recognition by making an application to any authority for the purpose of the Act. We find none. Nor any such provision has been brought to our notice by learned counsel. 31. Sub-section (2) of Section 14, if we may revert to it again, clearly indicates that only such authority is required to make an application for recognition of a course of education imparted by it to the Central Government which authority is not included in the Schedule. A University established by law without any specific reference to any particular University in the Schedule is a generic entry and includes every University established by an act of Legislature whether prior to or after the commencement of the Act. The requirement of amendment of Schedule is not dependent on the commencement of the course by any institution after the commencement of the Act but the necessity for seeking recognition is by those institution who are not included in the Schedule. The requirement of amendment of Schedule is not dependent on the commencement of the course by any institution after the commencement of the Act but the necessity for seeking recognition is by those institution who are not included in the Schedule. Since the Universities established by law are included in the Schedule as a class and not as an individual University, sub-section (2) of Section 14 cannot apply to the University for the purpose of making an application and seeking recognition of any new course before commencement of such course. Nor the learned counsel for the respondents has been able to show us from any provision that a University is required to make an application before commencement of a course in B.Arch and unless such permission is granted by the Council, such course cannot be commenced. This provision is not pari materia with provisions made in certain other enactments. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited certain precedents, which we shall advert to little later. 32. Thus, in our opinion, there being no provision for seeking permission from the Council before starting the course of B.Arch. by a University established by law which as a class has been included in the ‘recognised qualification’ in the schedule along with the enactment of the Act of 1972, the degree in architecture granted by the University is to be treated a priori as recognised qualification because it is given by a University which is authorised by law to grant degrees on its own and there being no other law having overriding effect, it cannot be read by any implication that University established by law under a State legislation imparting education in architecture has first to secure recognition from the Council or permission from the Council before commencement of the course as in the case of commencing course in medical and teachers education. 33. Once this conclusion is reached, the other conclusion necessarily follows that the B.Arch. degree granted by Jai Narain Vyas University is a recognised qualification for the purpose of the Act of 1972. 34. We may now examine the scheme of the Act for enrolling any person as an architect in the register of architects by the Council. In that regard. Section 17 of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- “17. degree granted by Jai Narain Vyas University is a recognised qualification for the purpose of the Act of 1972. 34. We may now examine the scheme of the Act for enrolling any person as an architect in the register of architects by the Council. In that regard. Section 17 of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- “17. Effect of recognition.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of this Act, any recognised qualification shall be a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register.” 35. It ordains that any recognised qualification shall be a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register. Therefore, a person holding recognised qualification is to be treated a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the Register unless any other provision of the Act ordains to the contrary. 36. In this connection, we may invite attention to the decision of Supreme Court in Dr. B.L. Asawa Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 . It was a case in which the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has declined to consider the candidature of the petitioner, appellant before the Supreme Court as eligible holding a recognised MBBS degree from a University established by law for seeking appointment as Assistant Professor on the ground that degree granted by University of Bihar has not been declared to be equivalent to the degree granted by University of Rajasthan. This contention has been upheld by the Rajasthan High Court. Reversing the judgment of Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court said:- “...the declaration of ‘equivalence’ referred to in Sec. 23A of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of Ordinance No.65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a Post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a statutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree basic as well as Post-graduate that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council.” 37. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree basic as well as Post-graduate that is awarded by a statutory Indian University and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council.” 37. The aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court is clearly indicative of the fact that unless otherwise provided by any other law, a degree granted by University established by law does not call for declaration of equivalence or recognition any more. 38. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement, if Entry 1 in the Schedule is examined, it is clearly in consonance with this general principle that degree awarded by University established by law must ordinarily be presumed to adhere to minimum standard of education required for imparting the course conducted under it and is required to be treated as recognised qualification for that purpose. 39. The only question, therefore, to be examined is, whether there is anything contrary provided by the law? Once we reach the conclusion that a degree granted by University in B.Arch. is a recognised qualification by virtue of the University being set under an Act of Legislature in terms of entry (i) in the Schedule appended to Act of 1972, whether the Registrar of the Council or Council can hold otherwise on the ground that the qualification/degree awarded by such University, Jai Narain Vyas University in the present case, does not entitle a person by itself to seek registration as an architect in the register of architects. 40. Before proceeding further, we may notice the provisions of the Act on which the learned counsel for the respondents relied is Section 21 read with Sections 17 and 26 (2) of the Act of 1972. 41. Section 17 states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to other provisions of this Act’, any recognised qualification shall be a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register. Apparently, overriding effect has been given to the provision of the Act over provisions contained in any other law. The petitioner is not seeking support from any provision other than the Act of 1972 itself. However, learned counsel for the respondents urges that since Section 17 is subject to other provisions of the Act, it must be read subject to provisions of Sections 21 and 26 as well. 42. The petitioner is not seeking support from any provision other than the Act of 1972 itself. However, learned counsel for the respondents urges that since Section 17 is subject to other provisions of the Act, it must be read subject to provisions of Sections 21 and 26 as well. 42. On principle, there cannot be any doubt about it however, the question is whether Sections 21 and 26 really yield to the result sought to be brought about by the respondents. It is the core contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that unless the recognised qualification satisfies the test of minimum standard of Architectural education according to the Council, the Council is not obliged to register a candidate and that discretion is vested in the Registrar once application is received to form an opinion whether a candidate is entitled to have his name entered in the register. In other words the respondents proposition is that though the qualification held by petitioner may be recognised qualification under the Act by its inclusion or continued inclusion in the Schedule, yet Registrar or the Council has discretion to deny the candidate registration because in his/its opinion that such recognised qualification does not deserve to be on recognised list. 5. In cases where permission has been granted in violation of existing bye-laws and the construction so far is in violation of approved building plan, the owner/user will be required to apply for construction permission as per existing building bye-laws within a period of one month and construction permission shall be revised and further construction will be done as per revised approved building plan. The construction done in violation of bye-laws should be demolished. 7.3 For construction of high-rise (multi-storey) buildings in future : The future norms should adopt a holistic town planning approach which must be based on parameters like population density, building density, traffic density, availability of parking space, pollution levels, availability of basic civic infrastructure etc. The norms should be such that they promote vertical expansion of Jodhpur city but at the same time prevents overcrowding in the already congested areas. 7.3.1 Building regulations and norms : 1. Specific provision of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (Urban Area, Building) Regulation 2001 are in force for Jodhpur urban area. The same are being followed by Nagar Nigam also as per their agreement dt. 17.07.2000 with U.I.T. The same should continue. 7.3.1 Building regulations and norms : 1. Specific provision of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (Urban Area, Building) Regulation 2001 are in force for Jodhpur urban area. The same are being followed by Nagar Nigam also as per their agreement dt. 17.07.2000 with U.I.T. The same should continue. However Nagar Nigam should take necessary action for approval of the above rules by State Govt. expeditiously. 2. For compounding, U.I.T. is following Building Construction Compounding Resolution dt. 15.07.1997. Nagar Nigam should follow the same guidelines. However, State Govt. may consider framing Model Compounding Rules for adoption by all U.I.T.’s and Municipal Bodies. 3. The following modifications in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (Urban Area, Building) Regulation 2001 are proposed :- zAll high rise (multi-storeyed) building may be permitted on roads having minimum width of 18 mtrs. At present the above buildings are permitted on roads 12 mtrs. wide. zAll high rise (multi-storeyed) buildings may be permitted on land of minimum 1000 sq. mtrs. area. At present the same are permitted on minimum 750 sq. mtrs. land area. zNo deviations from building plans approved as per building bye-laws may be permitted and no compounding should be done. zConcerned agencies may be permitted to provide permanent connections of water, electricity, sewerage, telephone etc. only after issue of completion certificate as per rules by concerned local body. 7.3.2. Identification of zones : It has been observed that permitting high rise (multi-storey) buildings throughout Jodhpur Urban area is not desirable. Permission for high rise building (multi-storeyed) should be granted after considering the carrying capacity of the existing infrastructural facilities viz; roads, sewerage, drainage, water, electricity, sanitation, etc. Other considerations should be parking space, fire safety, traffic density, green belts, heritage areas, proximity to aerodrome and defence establishments etc. For example, construction of high rise building in Parkota area of Jodhpur city will aggravate the traffic problem therein. Construction of high rise buildings in natural scenic areas, within heritage precincts and is surroundings of heritage areas the quality of such areas. Following zones have been tentatively identified where high rise (multi-storey) building shall not be permitted : zCity wall zone which includes area within city wall and near all city gates. Keeping in view the rising ground water level in walled city area, construction of basements shall also not be allowed in this zone. Following zones have been tentatively identified where high rise (multi-storey) building shall not be permitted : zCity wall zone which includes area within city wall and near all city gates. Keeping in view the rising ground water level in walled city area, construction of basements shall also not be allowed in this zone. zZone notified as no construction zone by Ministry of Defence near Airforce and Aerodrome area. zSardarpura zone comprising of ‘A’ & ‘B’ main roads and 1st to 12th ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, & ‘D’ roads. Other zones may be identified as and when required. 7.3.3 Procedural changes : Procedure for grant of construction permission : It has been observed that the procedure for granting construction permission requires improvement. The committee recommends that building permission should be granted after technical clearance by a Technical Committee comprising of Secretary U.I.T./C.E.O. Nagar Nigam as Chairperson and Head of Town Planing Wing of U.I.T./Nagar Nigam as Member Secretary. Other members should include Head of Technical Wing of U.I.T./Nagar Nigam, Superintending Engineer, PHED and JDVVNL and Police Officer in charge of Traffic of Jodhpur City. The above Technical Committee will assist the Building plan Approval Committee of concerned local body and the case should be presented before the Building plan Approval Committee only after clearance by the above Technical Committee. Procedure for monitoring of ongoing construction : a. After approval of above Building Plan Approval Committee, construction permission for only upto ground floor level will be released to the applicant. Upon being informed by the applicant regarding construction upto ground floor level being ready by inspection, the same will be inspected by the concerned technical officer who will certify that the construction carried out so far is as per approved plans. Only thereafter, the remaining floor plans will be released to the applicant for further construction. b. Upon completion of the building, the owner will submit a declaration to the concerned local body informing regarding completion of the building and certifying its structural, earthquake, earthquake, fire electrical, etc. safety and sufficiency of vehicle parking areas. The above declaration will be the basis for issue of Occupancy Certificate. c. The owner shall be required to deposit a security amount varying from Rs.5.00 lacs to Rs.20.00 lacs depending upon the size of the plot, at the time of issuing of building permission for ensuring compliance of following :- i. Construction of Rain Water Harvesting Structure. The above declaration will be the basis for issue of Occupancy Certificate. c. The owner shall be required to deposit a security amount varying from Rs.5.00 lacs to Rs.20.00 lacs depending upon the size of the plot, at the time of issuing of building permission for ensuring compliance of following :- i. Construction of Rain Water Harvesting Structure. ii.Provision for fire and earthquake safety as per National Building Code stipulations. iii. Availability of greenery and plantation as per rules. iv.Provision of parking as per Building bye-laws. 7.3.4 Identification of Parking Spaces : The committee also recommends that the city should have enough number of basement parking as well as multi-layered parking. CEO, Nagar Nigam and Secretary, U.I.T. will identify the sites fit for such parking locations. 7.3.5 Strengthening of Sewerage System of Jodhpur City : Nagar Nigam and UIT should prepare sewerage system project and submit to the concerned authority. The project should have provision for strengthening of existing sewerage system as well as inclusion of left out areas. 7.3.6 Responsibility of Nagar Nigam and Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur : Implementation of recommendations of this committee and directions of Hon’ble High Court thereupon for execution of the same would be the responsibility of Nagar Nigam & U.I.T. 8.0 Conclusion : Construction of high rise buildings which add to the urban quality of any city is related to several aspects which have been not available to Jodhpur city. Building bye-laws covering essential building parameters first came in force only on 15.07.1997. Even the existing building bye-laws now require improvements. Technical manpower for proper examination of building plans as well as for ensuring execution as per approved building plans at site has been highly insufficient in Nagar Nigam as well as U.I.T. Enforcement Wings of Nagar Nigam and U.I.T. Also need to be strengthened. There is a serious requirement for increase in public awareness on issues related to planned Urban growth Urban infrastructure requires major augmentation.” 29. We are not proceeding further with the matter of high rise buildings, as the order of this Court with respect to multi storeyed building has been stayed by the Apex Court on a Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Vaibhav Enterprises. A copy of the order of the Apex Court dt. 13.10.2006 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1967/2006 has been placed on record. A copy of the order of the Apex Court dt. 13.10.2006 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1967/2006 has been placed on record. In view of the interim order of the Apex Court, nothing is further required to be done in the matter. TRAFFIC-OUTSIDE RAILWAY STATION : 30. Having noticed the traffic mismanagement outside the Railway Station, a notice was given to the Railway Administration as well. The Railway Administration was directed to depute some officer to attend the meeting of the Traffic Management Committee. It appears that the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner apprised the officer concerned of the Railway Administration about the traffic congestion outside the Railway Station. The Railway Administration filed an affidavit stating that the entire problem was examined by the Committee constituted by the appropriate authority. A second gate has been provided on the other side of the Railway Station to reduce the congestion. On making the second gate operational, the congestion had been reduced to a great extent on the main gate. As regards the chaos around the main entrance of the Railway Station caused by unruly parking of the auto rickshaws and other vehicles on the main road, a plan has been placed before us. It was also pointed out that the Railway Administration has provided separate and adequate parking lots for Army vehicles, Govt. vehicles, private cars, Auto richshaws and car taxis. It was pointed out that circulating area outside the Station can be further improved if the STD Booth known as “Hello Hut” is got vacated. It was pointed out that a dispute in that regard is pending in the Civil Court. An attempt was made to bring some sort of conciliation between the Railway Administration and the party but unfortunately, the same did not succeed. Suffice it to say that we are satisfied that the Railway Administration has taken effective steps for managing the traffic outside the Railway Station. The file concerning “Hello Hut” be returned to the concerned Court forthwith. REMOVAL OF ENCROACHMENTS : 31. It was reported that one of the major reasons of congestion on the main road is encroachment by the shop keepers or by local vendors more particularly on Nai Sarak, Station Road, Sojati Gate, Jalori Gate, Sardarpura ‘B’ Road and Chopasni Road. Thus, the concerned authorities were directed to remove encroachments from the said area. This Court by order dt. It was reported that one of the major reasons of congestion on the main road is encroachment by the shop keepers or by local vendors more particularly on Nai Sarak, Station Road, Sojati Gate, Jalori Gate, Sardarpura ‘B’ Road and Chopasni Road. Thus, the concerned authorities were directed to remove encroachments from the said area. This Court by order dt. 02.03.2001, re-emphasized for removing the encroachments on the main roads from Mahamandir to Akhaliya Choraya, Pratap Nagar to Chopasni Road upto first Puliya, Nai Sarak, Sardarpura ‘B’ Road and main markets inside the old walled City. It was explained that the removal of encroachments will include the verandahs as well. It was also reported that in Khanda Falsa and Kabootron ka Chowk towards Gandhi Chowk and punglpada, there is a big milk market. Large number of milkmen with drums and vehicles collect on the roads and cause lot of harassment and difficulty both for the pedestrians as well as vehicles passing through. It was also reported that inhabitants of the area have encroached the public land by construction of Chabutaries. The narrow space left out was largely covered by big milk drums on both the sides of the motor vehicles practically blocking the entire road. The concerned authorities were directed to remove the encroachments from the said area. During the encroachment proceedings, some difficulties of the shop keepers were pointed out. Thus, a clarification was given that the shop keepers may be permitted to construct the steps oustside the shops as per the specification provided by the Corporation/U.I.T. The specification was approved by this Court. It was further noticed that a major cause of mushroom growth was the inaction on the part of the Administration. To curb the evil, this Court directed to divide the City in four zones and put each zone under the vigil of a responsible officer with a duty to ensure that there is no re-growth of encroachment. Certain officers were directed to file an affidavit quarterly before this Court certifying to the effect that in his area, there is no encroachment on footpath and pavements. It was further directed that re-encroachments in any area assigned to an officer shall be visited with a penalty after a departmental enquiry. The U.I.T. and the Municipal Corporation have filed the compliance reports as to the removal of encroachments as per the directions of this Court. It was further directed that re-encroachments in any area assigned to an officer shall be visited with a penalty after a departmental enquiry. The U.I.T. and the Municipal Corporation have filed the compliance reports as to the removal of encroachments as per the directions of this Court. The biggest achievement was the liberation of Akhaliya Choraya from the long time encroachments. The U.I.T. also submitted a design for developing a new market in Akhaliya Choraya. Another affidavit was filed stating that all the verandahs on the Nai Sarak have been cleared from encroachments and the same has been made available for the smooth movement of the pedestrians. We are satisfied with the exemplary work done on the Akhaliya Choraya and Verandahs on the Nai Sarak. SHIFTING OF ELECTRIC POLES, TRASFORMERS & HORDINGS : 32. It was noticed that at various places, the electricity poles and transformers were creating problem in the City. The directions were complied with. It was submitted that 471 poles have been shifted. At various places, the transformers and hoardings have been shifted. SHIFTING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE CONGESTION FROM THE HIGHT COURT ROAD : 33. This Court by order dt. 21.11.2000 also directed the State Government to explore the feasibility of shifting of main offices and Courts including the High Court to reduce the pressure on the existing main route. This part of the direction was not taken seriously by the State authorities, as such, a further direction was given by the order dt. 03.08.2001. The order runs in about 11 pages. We do not consider it necessary to refer the entire order. The operative part of the order reads as follows : “Consequently, we direct the State Government to take up the matter of construction of a new High Court Building at Jodhpur on top priority. A copy of this order shall be delivered to the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan latest by 07.08.2001. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan is directed to take up the matter at the appropriate higher level before the State Government as well as the Central Government. The Chief Secretary will submit a compliance report by filing an affidavit on or before 10.09.2001.” 34. In compliance of the order of this Court dt. 03.08.2001, Mr. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan is directed to take up the matter at the appropriate higher level before the State Government as well as the Central Government. The Chief Secretary will submit a compliance report by filing an affidavit on or before 10.09.2001.” 34. In compliance of the order of this Court dt. 03.08.2001, Mr. Inderjeet Khanna, the then Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, filed an affidavit expressing willingness on the part of the State Government for construction of new building of the High Court. The order dt. 25.09.2001 which runs in about 12 pages, is not required to be referred in detail. Another order in this regard was passed on 14.02.2002. Another detailed order was passed on 15.04.2002. At this stage, a reporting appeared in one of the regional newspapers about the traffic management in the High Court building itself. Thus, certain directions were given to the District Administration in that regard. Suffice it to say that the directions and compliance reports have been noticed in the order dt. 15.04.2002, which are extracted as follows : DIRECTIONSCOMPLIANCE 35. The State Government took up the issue seriously and asked the High Court to select the site. We are happy to record that issue has been taken seriously by the State as well as by the High Court and the land has been allotted. The other necessary formalities are complete. We hope that shifting of the High Court Building would definitely reduce the traffic congestion on the High Court Road to a great extent. CITY ROADS: 36. It is informed that total length of roads of City of Jodhpur is 142.55 kms, out of which three National Highways i.e. NH-65 Nagaur-Jodhpur, NH-112 Barmer-Bilara-Jodhpur-Balotra-Barmer and NH 114 Jodhpur-Pokaran passes. Total length of the National Highways passing through the City of Jodhpur comes to around 54.00 kms. It is reported that almost on all the National Highways, the patch work has been done. It is reported by the National Highway Authorities that some part of the roads of National Highways is damaged due to continuous overflow of sewerage lines and occasional leakage of water of supply lines, which are required to be repaired by the Public Works Department. It is reported by the National Highway Authorities that some part of the roads of National Highways is damaged due to continuous overflow of sewerage lines and occasional leakage of water of supply lines, which are required to be repaired by the Public Works Department. The substantial part of the roads is maintained by the P.W.D. The Municipal Area has been divided in three parts viz; City Area, Sardarpura Area and Soorsagar Area, the substantial roads of the City are maintained by the Urban Improvement Trust. In the Chopasni Housing Board Area and Madhuban Colony, there are about 39 roads. So at one stage, it was reported that repairing of all the roads has been completed. It is reported that the repairing/patching work has not yielded the requisite relief. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT : 37. This Court by order dt. 02.03.2001 gave direction with respect to technology adopted for storage, collection, transportation and disposal of waste. Further directions were given for submitting a plan for conversion of organic waste/biodegradable waste into Bio Organic Fertilizer (Compost) etc. A compliance report in this regard has been submitted in this regard recently on 29.11.2006. The Municipal Corporation has taken effective steps and established a Solid Waste Treatment Plant at Keru. The plant is yet to start functioning. Details have been furnished to us as to the improvement made in the matter of lifting of waste, its route chart, time and date schedule etc. It is stated that big collection centres have been earmarked at different places. Green waste of hotels shall be directly taken to the Keru plant. It is stated that Nagar Nigam will make the Robot machine fully functional by the end of this month. It is also stated that awareness Camps regarding the garbage and their disposal will be organized from time to time. SEWERAGE : 38. A direction was given to prepare a Blue print for reviving and maintenance of drainage and sewerage system inside and outside the City wall of Jodhpur. It is reported that under the Sewerage Master plan, the City was divided into four master drainage zone i.e. Jhalamand, Pal, Punjla and Industrial area. It is reported that the entire Sewerage project has been completed. Recently, the traffic Management Committee visited the Nandri Kallan Sewerage Project, which is having a capacity of 20 MLD. It is reported that under the Sewerage Master plan, the City was divided into four master drainage zone i.e. Jhalamand, Pal, Punjla and Industrial area. It is reported that the entire Sewerage project has been completed. Recently, the traffic Management Committee visited the Nandri Kallan Sewerage Project, which is having a capacity of 20 MLD. It is stated that the project is found to be operational, which is enough for the requirement of next 34 years. The Camps are being organized to encourage people to take benefit of the sewerage lines. For the better use of treated water, the P.H.E.D. was required to transfer the substantial amount collected in the name of Sewerage to the Municipal Corporation. It is reported that the substantial amount has been paid to the Municipal Corporation and the remaining amount of 208.83 lacs shall be paid latest by 31.03.2007. It is also brought to our notice that the Nagar Nigam will identify worst sewerage points that need immediate attention through outsourcing by 31.03.2007. For public awareness, the projects details will be placed on their website. The steps are being taken for upgrading the present sewerage system. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE : 39. The meetings of the Traffic Management Committee under the chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner are being regularly held. Before the matter is placed before the Court, the report is received by the Divisional Commissioner. It is found that the monitoring by the Divisional Commissioner has been proved to be very useful and effective. CORE COMMITTEE OF LAWYERS : 40. This Court by order dt. 12.04.2006 constituted a Core Committee of lawyers headed by Shri Marudhar Mridul, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ramrakh Vyas and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari to take stock of all the orders passed by this Court so far and to the extent, they have been complied with by the State and the local authorities. The brief summary of the report submitted, is given as follows: i The project report for the Outer Ring Road and Inner Ring Road be considered favourably ; ii. Looking to the vehicular pollution, presently prevailing in the City, appropriate direction be given for all the public vehicles to use CNG instead of petrol or diesel; iii. With the expansion of Housing Board Schemes and other Schemes, the traffic has increased manifold, as such, appropriate direction be given for widening the road proceeding from Akhaliya Choraya towards Chopasni Road. Looking to the vehicular pollution, presently prevailing in the City, appropriate direction be given for all the public vehicles to use CNG instead of petrol or diesel; iii. With the expansion of Housing Board Schemes and other Schemes, the traffic has increased manifold, as such, appropriate direction be given for widening the road proceeding from Akhaliya Choraya towards Chopasni Road. Similarly, the road proceeding from Residency Road to Boranada is further required to be widened. The obstructions on the way in the form of trees, electric poles etc. be removed. While permitting removal of trees, appropriate directions be given to plant equal number of trees; iv. The plan submitted by Mr. Govind Singh, a senior citizen, with respect to widening of roads, particularly from Railway Station to Sojati Gate, Nai Sarak and Old Stadium be considered; v. The efforts made as to checking of pollution needs to be strengthened more seriously. Serious efforts are to be made to check the movement of unruly City Buses. The private buses are being parked in the busy area in haphazard manner. These buses are mega buses and even double deckers which occupy substantial area of land. Appropriate direction is required to be given to the authorities to earmark land where the Stands for private buses can be provided. They should be located at four corners on the outer periphery of the City; vi. The depot of the R.S.R.T.C., presently situated near the Railway Overbridge, adjacent to Vegetable and Fruit Market, be shifted, as this has become a hazard and accident prone. The land which becomes available on account of shifting of depot of RSRTC, may be made available to Vegetable and Fruit Mandi, which is already in shambles being at a very narrow space; vii. The dustbins provided by the Municipal Corporation are in bad shape. The waste from dustbins is not being disposed of regularly. It is suggested that putting in place a Collection System according to which a Cycle Rickshaw may go around the colonies, collect the waste and then dump the same at the fixed place. It is also suggested that for this purpose, the residents of the area may be saddled with the liability of making payment to these persons through their Mohalla Samitis or by some other method; vii. It is also suggested that for this purpose, the residents of the area may be saddled with the liability of making payment to these persons through their Mohalla Samitis or by some other method; vii. There are large number of small scale industries emitting smoke and all sorts of pollutants inside the City of Jodhpur. They are in operation without any licence. Chabutaris have been constructed making the narrow roads narrow still. Appropriate direction is required to be given in that regard; ix. The parking area presently available outside the Railway Station for Cars and two wheelers is not sufficient. Appropriate direction is required to be given in that regard to the Railway Administration. It is also suggested that just adjacent to the parking place, there is an old Railway Colony which is extended upto M/s Sanghi Brothers. It is suggested that the Colony may be shifted somewhere else and this area may be utilized for the parking place. It is also suggested that looking to the future need of 50 years, the entire building of M/s Sanghi Brothers be acquired. A further direction is required to be given to the Railway Administration to provide necessary facilities which may make the other gate of the Railway Station sufficiently operative. x. Looking to the fact that the vehicular traffic has increased mainfold, appropriate direction may be given for multi storeyed parking near the Mohanpura overbridge and the land owned by Chandsa Takiya; xi. The roads which have been laid by P.W.D. and other departments are qualitatively extremely poor; xii. Appropriate direction be given to the Divisional Commissioner to invite and permit the participation of the citizens 41. As a result of the continuous monitoring, the situation has substantially improved. Still, the grievance has been voiced with respect to non-compliance of some of the orders passed by this Court. It is stated that irrespective of the fact that there is a total ban on entry of heavy vehicles in the City of Jodhpur, there are escape entries through streets and other unimportant highways. Regarding plying of the City Buses, it is stated that some laxity is noticed in the matter of checking of vehicles, particularly the City Buses being driven rashly. The City Buses and tempos do not stop at the designated places. Regarding plying of the City Buses, it is stated that some laxity is noticed in the matter of checking of vehicles, particularly the City Buses being driven rashly. The City Buses and tempos do not stop at the designated places. The order with respect to parking of heavy vehicles inside the City after loading and unloading work is complete, is not being followed seriously. By and large there is dis-satisfaction with the work done by the A.D.B. It is submitted that removal of encroachment should be taken as a regular process and not as a drive only. The re-encroachment cases should be viewed very seriously. The responsibility be fixed on staff and all the officers concerned. Simply providing parking or pay parking places, is not sufficient. Some more seriousness is required to be shown. With respect to the Solid Waste Management, the people are not being properly educated at the use of plastic buckets. The conditions of parking have not been improved. The constructions are being raised in the parks of the Colonies. 42. On overall consideration, we are satisfied that the administration of directions given by this Court from time to time since November, 2000, has eventually resulted in precipitating the whole situation. There comes to be noticed visible changes on many fronts, as indicated above. The Core Committee of lawyers has also recorded the satisfaction as follows: “Hon’ble Court has been king enough to reckon numerous problems facing the situation and indeed but for the intervention of the Court and but for the monitoring by a continuous mandamus, lot much has happened in the City to its good. The humble submission of the Committee is that this process should be kept as an on going process and the Hon’ble Court may continue to make directions from time to time.” 43. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the prayer to continue the process of continuous mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an order in the form of a command directed to an administrative authority or other authority required to perform a specific duty fixed by law or associated with the public office. It is obvious that it is primarily for the Executive to advise suitable measures and to provide the machinery for rigid enforcement all those measures to deal with the problems as raised in the instant petition. It is obvious that it is primarily for the Executive to advise suitable measures and to provide the machinery for rigid enforcement all those measures to deal with the problems as raised in the instant petition. However, a doubt has been expressed about the extent of powers of the concerned authorities to take adequate and suitable measures for the speedy enforcement of the existing provisions which if properly enforced, would take care of the problems raised. Thus, there is a need of judicial intervention. The Courts have been making judicial intervention concerning violation of human rights, environmental problems etc. as an on going judicial process. The initiative in the direction of the environmental problem was provided on a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in public interest in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1985). Since then, its numerous and diverse orders activated the Central Government, the State Administrations and the Local bodies towards their Constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In M.C. Mehta’s case (supra), the Court innovated the principle of continuous mandamus. Since then, it has been resorted in large number of cases. Reference be made to Vineet Narain’s Case reported in 1998(1) SCC 226 . The writ procedure in the public interest litigation has to be speedy and to ensure that, directions given in the public interest, are faithfully and punctually complied with. The judicial innovation requires continuous supervision or monitoring the prospective judicial orders. In a public interest litigation, the role of the Court is that of a catalyst (a substance that increases the rate of chemical reaction). Justice A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India, dealing with the judicial activism, observed that judiciary can only act as alarm clock but not as a time keeper. After giving the alarm call, it must ensure to see that the executive performs its duties in the manner envisaged by the Constitution. It must be remembered that the Courts cannot run the Government nor the administrative indulge in abuse or non use of power and get away with it. Judges are expected to be circumspect and self disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. The danger of judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement will in the ultimate analysis be counter productive and will undermine the creditability of the Institution. Judges are expected to be circumspect and self disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. The danger of judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement will in the ultimate analysis be counter productive and will undermine the creditability of the Institution. A care must be taken that inadvertently or overzealously, the instrumentality of the Courts is not exercised to be polluted thereby eroding public trust and confidence in the Institution. Judicial activism is delicate exercise involving creativity. Great skill is required for innovation. There is a danger of populism imperceptibility influencing the psyche. Public adulation must not sway the Judges and personal aggrandizement must be eschewed. It is imperative to preserve the sanctity and creditability of the judicial process. As already observed, in a public interest litigation, the role of the Court is that of a catalyst. Judicial whistle is blown. It is now for the executive and the people to take the things to the logical conclusion. We only say that we are satisfied that the ball has been set in motion and, as such, we do not consider it appropriate to continue with the matter as an on going process for an indefinite period. 44. Before we close the case and give final directions, we record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned advocates of the Core group of lawyers viz; Shri Marudhar Mridul, Senior Advocate, Shri B.L. Maheshwari and Shri Ram Rakh Vyas. We also record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri R.L. Jangid former Additional Advocate General and Shri N.M. Lodha, Additional Advocate General. We also record our deep appreciation for all the officers of the State Government and the local authorities, who have done their best in complying with the directions of this Court to achieve the pious object of the instant public interest litigation. 45. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The Jodhpur City and the areas contiguous have progressively developed and populated. In the orderly and rapid development of the area, several Government departments, local authorities and other Organizations are not only required to be engaged but there is a necessity to bring the coordination among them. 45. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The Jodhpur City and the areas contiguous have progressively developed and populated. In the orderly and rapid development of the area, several Government departments, local authorities and other Organizations are not only required to be engaged but there is a necessity to bring the coordination among them. Thus, it would be expedient to consider to set up an authority in the line of Jaipur Development Authority i.e. to say Jodhpur Development Authority; (ii) The State Government is directed to ensure the compliance of the order dt. 21.11.2000 passed by this Court within a time schedule as to shifting of public buildings including the High Court and other Courts/Tribunals in order to reduce the congestion from the High Court Road; (iii) The effective directions and compliance thereon, has substantially reduced the traffic congestion from the City but this should not be taken as the end of the matter, as the directions given by this Court from time to time and compliance thereon, are bound to have effect on the future development of the City changing its complexion. It is directed that the orders given by this Court from time to time be enforced effectively; (iv) The byepass which was promised to be made operational by the end of December, 2006, could not be completed for the reasons given. The time for the same is extended upto September, 2007. We hope and trust that the said job shall be completed during the stipulated period i.e. September, 2007; (v) In the matter of laying down the roads and maintenance inside the City by different agencies viz; National Highway Authorities, P.W.D., U.I.T. and the Municipal Corporation, substantial work has been done. However, the complaint is that the roads laid down by the P.W.D. and the U.I.T. are qualitatively poor. We feel that little more is required to be done to improve the roads of the City of Jodhpur. The National Highway Authorities are directed to improve the conditions of the roads passing through the City. They should also work in coordination with the U.I.T. and the Municipal Corporation. An officer of the National Highway Authorities will regularly participate in the Traffic Management Committee meetings. We disapprove the obstructions created by the National Highway Authorities in the matter of providing parking. They should also work in coordination with the U.I.T. and the Municipal Corporation. An officer of the National Highway Authorities will regularly participate in the Traffic Management Committee meetings. We disapprove the obstructions created by the National Highway Authorities in the matter of providing parking. They must clearly understand that the work has been undertaken under the orders of this Court. Similarly, the U.I.T., the Municipal Corporation and the P.W.D. should take more effective steps to improve the road conditions of the City of Jodhpur; (vi) All the authorities are directed to punctually and faithfully comply with the orders of this Court as to removing encroachments from the public places. The anti-encroachment and demolition programmes should be taken as a regular course and not as a drive only. Obstructions on roads in the form of poles, transformers, hoardings, cabins, installed some sort of structure to show place of worship of any religion, trees be shifted or removed. In case of removal of trees, same number of trees be planted at appropriate place. Encroachments on roads, particularly Pal Road, as indicated above, be removed. In case of re-encroachment, matters be reported to the Court by way of initiation of contempt proceedings; (vii) In the matter of traffic control, effective work has been done. The traffic police has succeeded in controlling the unruly traffic in the City of Jodhpur. However, something more seriously needs to be done to check the movement of unruly City Buses. Unfortunately, the rash driving of the drivers of the Luxury Cars has become hazard for the innocent people thereby increasing the number of accidents. The exemplary penalties be inflicted on drivers of the City Buses driving rashly and so as the cars and motorcycles. The careless driving using mobiles, should be checked and exemplary penalties be imposed; (viii) Inspite of repeated directions for proper parking, the private Buses are being seen parked in busy areas in the haphazard manner. These buses are mega buses and even double decker which occupy substantial area of the land. Thus, we direct the concerned authorities to earmark the land within a period of six weeks, where the Stand for private buses can be provided. These buses are mega buses and even double decker which occupy substantial area of the land. Thus, we direct the concerned authorities to earmark the land within a period of six weeks, where the Stand for private buses can be provided. In this regard, the concerned authorities should take into account the report of the Lawyers Core Group; (ix) The authorities should take effective steps that within a period of one year, the public vehicles use C.N.G. instead of petrol and diesel; (x) It is reported that there are large number of small scale industries emitting smoke and all sorts of pollutants inside the City of Jodhpur. It is also reported that they are in operation without licence. Effective steps be taken to shift them outside the City within a period of six months; (xi) Considering the expansion of the Housing Board Scheme and other Schemes and the increase of traffic manifold, it is directed that effective steps be taken for widening the road proceeding from Akhaliya Choraya towards Chopasni Road. Similarly, the road proceeding from Residency Road to Boranada be further widened. The obstructions in the form of trees, electric poles etc. be removed. While removing the trees, equal number of trees be planted at appropriate places; (xii) A study be made and if possible, the depot of R.S.R.T.C. presently situated near the Railway Overbridge adjacent to the Vegetable and Fruit Market be shifted to elsewhere, as it has become a hazard and accident prone; (xiii) The State Government is directed to make the Solid Waste Management practice as effective for improving the quality of life in urban areas. The Municipal Corporation is directed to properly arrange and supervise the work of Street Sweepers and Labour force employed in collection, transportation, processing and disposal of waste effectively; (xiv) The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur is directed to provide provision for collection, transportation and disposal of construction waste and debris without delay for which appropriate bye-laws be prepared to bound down the person likely to produce construction waste, to deposit with the Local Bodies an approximate amount in advance at the rates as may be prescribed for removal and disposal of construction waste from his premises. Such amount may be deposited at the time when building permission is sought and in case, where such permission is not required, at any time before such waste is produced. Such amount may be deposited at the time when building permission is sought and in case, where such permission is not required, at any time before such waste is produced. Similarly, provision be made for collection of waste and prescribe the rates for collection of waste from Marriage Halls, Community Halls and other functions. This can be multiplied by prescribing the rates for collection of bio-medical waste, hotel and restaurant waste and vegetable, fruit, meat markets waste, garden waste etc; (xv) The direction given with respect to deputing the Mobile Magistrate and providing him a vehicle is extended upto 30.05.2007. The decision with respect to further continuance shall be taken by the High Court and the State Government at the administrative level; (xvi) The Railway Administration in compliance with the orders of this Court and otherwise as well, has taken effective steps in reducing the congestion outside the Railway Station and providing smooth traffic. However, much is still required to be done. The parking of the cars and two wheelers outside the Railway Station is still found to be unruly. The Railway Administration should take effective steps in that regard; and (xvii) There shall be complete ban on immersion of idols and other materials during festivals in any of the Water Reservoirs of the City, which results into contamination of water. The District Administration is directed to follow the directions given in this regard in a “Public Interest Litigation” being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4938/2003 “Poonam Chand Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan; (xviii) Inadequate taxation and ineffective management, both, renders the municipal services far from being satisfactory. Thus, the State Government should seriously consider and improve the finance of the Urban Local Bodies, particularly the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. (xix) Last but not the least, we say that any direction or effort by this Court or any other authority, would be of no worth, if the citizens do not actively participate to make the traffic management or other management, effective. 46. We conclude with the hope and trust that all right thinking people interested in the development of the City, will cooperate with the State and Local Authorities for the betterment of the City of Jodhpur. * * * * *