JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice (Oral): 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This petition was filed in the year 2006 challenging the provisions of Section 203 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Council Act, 1994 and Section 243 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, as it existed at the relevant time, essentially on the ground that the said provisions permit submission of notice for erection of building, accompanied by documents and specifications, duly signed by a qualified Structural Engineer only. The petitioners are Architects by profession. According to the petitioners, the job of preparation of plans and specifications should be best left to the Architects and, more particularly, keeping in mind the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972. The background, in which the said Act of 1972 was introduced, can be spelt out from the statement of objects and reasons, which reads thus:- “Since independence and more particularly with the implementation of the Five-Year Plans, the building construction activity in our country has expanded almost on a phenomenal scale. A large variety of buildings, many of extreme complexity and magnitude like multi-storeyed office buildings, factory buildings, residential houses, is being constructed each year. With this increase in the building activity, many unqualified persons calling themselves as Architects are undertaking the construction of buildings which are uneconomical and quite frequently are unsafe, thus bringing into disrepute the profession of architects. Various organisations, including the Indian Institute of Architects, have repeatedly emphasised the need for statutory regulation to protect the general public from unqualified persons working as architects. With the passing of this legislation, it will be unlawful for any person to designate himself as 'architect' unless he has the requisite qualifications and experience and is registered under the Act. The Legislation is generally on the same line as similar Act in other countries. 2. With the passing of this legislation, it will be unlawful for any person to designate himself as 'architect' unless he has the requisite qualifications and experience and is registered under the Act. The Legislation is generally on the same line as similar Act in other countries. 2. The main features of the Bill are:— (a) creation of a body corporate by the name of "Council of Architecture”; (b) vesting the requisite powers for the registration of architects in the Council; (c) enrolment initially of persons holding a degree or diploma in architecture recognised by Central Government or possessing other qualifications which may be prescribed by the Central Government or of persons who have proved to the satisfaction of the Council to have been engaged in practice as architects for a period of not less than five years before the commencement of the proposed legislation; (d) subsequent, enrolment of person who hold degrees or diplomas in architecture recognised by the Central Government or who possess other qualifications that may be prescribed by the Central Government; (e) holding of enquiries into the misconduct of registered architects and taking suitable action; (f) prescribing standards of professional conduct and etiquette and Code of ethics for architects; and (g) assessment of the standards of education and training of architects within the countries. 3. The legislation protects the title "architects" but does not make the design, supervision and construction of buildings as an exclusive responsibility of architects. Other professions like engineers will be free to engage themselves in their normal vocation in respect of building construction work provided that they do not style themselves as architects. 4. The Bill also stipulates that after an expiry of two years from the date of Act coming into force, a person who is registered as an architect shall get preference for appointment as an architect under the Central or State Government or in any other local body or institution which is supported or aided from the public or local funds or in any institution recognised by the Central Government. 5. The proposed Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Notably, during the pendency of this petition, the State amended the provisions of the respective Acts of 1994 by introducing proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 243 and proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 203, which read thus:- “243(2): ………………. …………………. 5. The proposed Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Notably, during the pendency of this petition, the State amended the provisions of the respective Acts of 1994 by introducing proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 243 and proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 203, which read thus:- “243(2): ………………. …………………. …………………… Provided that every such plan and specifications shall be duly signed by a qualified Structural Engineer or Architect or Planner or Junior Engineer or Draughtsman registered with the Corporation, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Corporation, from time to time.” “203(3)(b): ……………… ……………………. …………………… Provided that every such plan and specification shall be duly signed by a qualified Structural Engineer or Architect or Planner or Junior Engineer or Draughtsman who is registered with the Municipality, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the municipality.” 4. In the year 2001, the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Rules, 1978 were amended, by virtue of notification No. TCP-F(6), dated 6th February 2001, whereby sub-rule (3) to Rule 12 was introduced as follows:- “All the plans attached with the applications submitted under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared/designed/signed by Architect/Planner/Engineer/Draughtsman licenced and registered in accordance with the provisions of appendix-II of these rules.” 5. Under the said amended Rule 1 2 (3), appendix-II has been framed as follows: “LICENCING OF ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/DRAUGHTSMEN. THEIR QUALFIICATION AND COMPETENCY. 1. Essential requirements.- Every Plan/Design within the limits of Planning Area/Special Area shall be prepared/designed/signed by an Architect/Planner/Engineer/Draughtsman belonging to an appropriate class of Architect/Planner/Engineer/Draughtsman and duly registered and licensed by the Director. 2. Categorization. - The licenced and registered Architect/Planners/Engineers/Draftsmen for the purpose of preparation of Plans/Design/sign shall be classified into following 3 classes namely A, B and C. The classification being based on the plot area for which they will be eligible to prepare Plans/design and sign the same within Planning Area/Special Area. The limit of the plot area for the preparation/design/sign by such class of the registered and licenced Architect/Planner/Engineer/Draughtsman shall be as under: Class Plot Area for sub-division of plot A-Class No limit No limit. B-Class 500 sq. mtrs. 5000 sq. mtrs. C-Class 250 sq. mtrs. Nil. 3. The limit of the plot area for the preparation/design/sign by such class of the registered and licenced Architect/Planner/Engineer/Draughtsman shall be as under: Class Plot Area for sub-division of plot A-Class No limit No limit. B-Class 500 sq. mtrs. 5000 sq. mtrs. C-Class 250 sq. mtrs. Nil. 3. Class-wise Qualification.- The minimum qualification necessary for the registration and licensing of Architects/Planners/Engineers/Draughtsmen of an appropriate class shall be as under:- Class-A.-A degree or equivalent qualification in architecture from a recognized University or Institute, making the holder eligible for Associateship or Fellowship of the Royal Institute of British Architects or Institute of Architects (India) and registered with Council of Architecture. or A degree or equivalent qualification in Town Planning or Regional Planning from a recognized university or Institute making the holder eligible for the Associateship or Fellowship of the Institute of Town Planner (India) or Royal Institute of Town Planners (Landon). or A degree or equivalent qualification in Civil Engineering from a recognized University or Institute, making the holder eligible for the Associate Membership of Institute of Engineers (India). Class-B.- Three years Diploma in Civil Engineering or equivalent recognized for recruitment to the Himachal Engineering Service Class-III or three years Diploma Course in Architectural assistantship awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or Intermediate in Architecture or equivalent. Class-C.- Diploma in Civil Draughtsmanship/Surveyor or equivalent from a recognized polytechnic/Industrial Training Institute and recognized for recruitment to the Service of civil Draughtsman/Surveyor.” 6. Reverting back to the challenge in the writ petition, as filed in 2006, it was founded on the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners asserted that even the Architects ought to be included as authorized signatories for submission of notice for erection of building in the relevant provisions of the Acts of 1994 and not limited to Structural Engineers. That challenge, however, would not survive for consideration in view of the amendment effected in the respective enactments of 1994 in the year 2007, vide proviso. That not only enabled Structural Engineers to be authorized signatory on the notice for erection of building, but, in addition, also permitted qualified Architects or Planners or Junior Engineers or Draughtsmen. Provided, however, they are registered with the Corporation or Municipality, as the case may be. That not only enabled Structural Engineers to be authorized signatory on the notice for erection of building, but, in addition, also permitted qualified Architects or Planners or Junior Engineers or Draughtsmen. Provided, however, they are registered with the Corporation or Municipality, as the case may be. The purpose for registration with the Corporation is obviously to ensure that the specified professionals, who sign the documents, plans and specifications submitted alongwith the notice for erection of building, should be available to the Corporation as and when required. This provision, according to the respondents-State, was necessitated considering the low number of Architects in the region, in particular, State of Himachal Pradesh, as compared to the exponential growth in the construction activity during the relevant period. That has been highlighted in the tabulated chart placed on record vide Annexure RA/3 from pages 253 to 255. 7. The question that now survives for consideration after the amendment of the writ petition in December, 2007 is: whether the Architects alone are entitled to act as signatories to the notice for erection of building in the Municipal area or Corporation limits? Going by the scheme of the Architects Act, we are of the considered opinion that it does not vest or bestow exclusivity of responsibility for preparation of building plans and submission thereof to the Municipal authorities with the Architects registered with the Indian Institute of Architects. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 1972, no doubt, refer to the prevailing situation that unqualified persons pose themselves as Architects and were undertaking construction of the buildings. But, the question that needs to be answered in the present petition, in the context of Section 243 of the Corporation Act or Section 203 of the Municipal Act is: whether the qualified persons referred to in the provisos of the respective provisions are incompetent to be signatory to the documents, plans and specifications accompanying the notice for erection of building submitted to the Municipal authority? As aforesaid, the purpose underlying the stated provisos is to ensure that the qualified professionals are registered with the Corporation so that they are available during the scrutiny of the plans. It is common ground that the person who is signatory to such plans, documents and specifications submitted alongwith the notice for erection of building is not necessarily responsible for the actual construction activity or the final approval by the Corporation. It is common ground that the person who is signatory to such plans, documents and specifications submitted alongwith the notice for erection of building is not necessarily responsible for the actual construction activity or the final approval by the Corporation. The Corporation or Municipality has its independent qualified staff to supervise and certify about the stability of the building, consequent to which the final approval and occupancy certificate is issued. Further, it is not as if the named professionals i.e. Structural Engineers or Planners or Junior Engineers or Draughtsmen are completely alien to the technical matters of preparation of building plan and its specification. Moreover, since the Act of 1972 does not vest exclusivity of function of preparation of plan or for that matter submission of the building plan to the Municipal authorities in the Architects, the challenge to the provisos incorporated in Section 243 of the Corporation Act and Section 203 of the Municipal Act, under consideration, is completely devoid of merits. 8. The argument of the petitioners that the persons with different qualifications having been grouped together results in unequals being treated equally also is devoid of merits for the same reason. Neither Section 243 of the Corporation Act nor Section 203 of the Municipal Act requires qualified signatory to the plans and specifications to follow-up the construction activity nor any consequence has been provided on the signatory to the plan and specification for any lapse committed during such construction activity by some other agency. Indisputably, the persons who have been grouped under the proviso are qualified Structural Engineers or Architects or Planners or Junior Engineers or Draughtsmen registered with the Corporation, who, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be unrelated with the activity of construction of building as such. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, the argument that the unequals have been treated equally also does not merit any consideration. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all the companion civil applications are also dismissed.