JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ petition filed under section 226 of Constitution of India for Writ of Declaration declaring that the subsequent nominee of the sixth respondent as the nominee of the State of Tamil Nadu to the council of Architecture by the third respondent made vide letter dated 03.05.2022 as illegal, Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent dated 25.04.2022 in Ref.No.CA/46(11)/2022/Council/NMN(TN) and quash the same and Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to upload the original nomination of the Council of Architecture in its official webportal and consequentially allow the petitioner to exercise all rights as the nominee of the State of Tamil Nadu in the Council of Architecture as its member in pursuance to the nomination made by the second respondent vide communication dated 07.04.2022 in Reg. No. Nil.) The issue involved in this writ petition falls under Architects Act, 1972 and it pertains to an elected member who has been nominated by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the fourth respondent Council on 07.04.2022, when the petitioner continued to be an elected member of the Council as on that date. Under the provision of section 6 of the Architects Act, 1972, the petitioner can be either an elected member or a nominated member, but not both. 2. Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.A.Anuradha, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3, Mr.Naveen R.Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.A.Sheik Peer learned counsel for the respondents 4 & 5 and Mr.V.Sivalingam, learned counsel for the respondent 6. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that on the date of his nomination by the State Government on 07.04.2022, he has submitted his resignation as an elected member though orally. He would also state that on 08.04.2022, he had submitted an hand written resignation to the fourth respondent Council as an elected member. 4. However, the receipt of the same has been denied by the fourth respondent Council. According to the fourth respondent Council, the petitioner submitted his resignation only on 27.04.2022 and further they would submit that the said resignation will have to be accepted and only from the date of said acceptance, the resignation comes into effect. 4. However, the receipt of the same has been denied by the fourth respondent Council. According to the fourth respondent Council, the petitioner submitted his resignation only on 27.04.2022 and further they would submit that the said resignation will have to be accepted and only from the date of said acceptance, the resignation comes into effect. Therefore according to the fourth respondent, the nomination sent by the State Government on 07.04.2022 nominating the petitioner as a member of the fourth respondent Council was rightly rejected under the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022 only in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 as the petitioner did not cease to be an elected member before the date of his nomination by the State Government on 07.04.2022. Further it is the contention of the fourth respondent that subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination by the State Government under the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022, the State Government on the request made by the fourth respondent Council has nominated the sixth respondent as their nominee in place of the petitioner to the fourth respondent Council and the said nomination has also been accepted by the fourth respondent Council on 06.05.2022. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 25.04.2022 on the following grounds: (a) It is without jurisdiction; (b) It is a misuse of the powers for ulterior motives; and (c) There is no prohibition for nominating a person or for renominating a person in the Architects Act to be a member of the Council of Architecture (CoA). 6. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the fourth respondent Council wherein they have stated as follows: (a) As an existing elected member of the Council under section 3(3)(c) of the Architects Act, 1972, the petitioner is ineligible for nomination by the State Government with effect from 07.04.2022. (b) The petitioner has already challenged the decision of the Union of India declaring his elected status as ceased in view of his ceasing to be a head of an institution which is prerequisite for continuing to be an elected member in W.P.No.601 of 2020, in which, this Court granted stay of the impugned order therein on 10.01.2020 and the said interim order was also made absolute on 09.11.2021 and the main W.P.No.601 of 2020 was withdrawn by the petitioner only on 21.07.2022, after his nomination by the State Government on 07.04.2022. (c) The elected tenure of the petitioner is valid till 19.08.2022 and therefore, the nomination by the State Government before the expiry of the tenure cannot be acted upon by the Council and hence, the petitioner is ineligible for nomination to be appointed as a member of the State Government. (d) The petitioner has made unjustified and unwarranted allegations of bias and malafides against the fourth respondent by making statements contrary to the facts of the documentary records including the orders passed by this court. Discussion: 7. The State Government through the Hon'ble Minister of Higher Education, Government of Tamilnadu had nominated the petitioner as a member of the fourth respondent Council on 07.04.2022. On that date, the petitioner was an elected member and his elected status admittedly will get expired only on 19.08.2022. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the first respondent that in terms of section 6(3)(iii) of the Architects Act, 1972, the petitioner is deemed to have vacated the post of a member of Architecture Council on his resignation from the Post of Professor and Dean, School of Architecture, Interior Design, SRM IST, Kattangulathur, Chengalpet District. By order dated 10.01.2020 in W.P.No.601 of 2020, the aforesaid order of the first respondent dated 30.12.2019 was stayed on the ground that the first respondent has not considered the fact that the petitioner had joined in an equivalent post of Professor and Dean, School of Architecture, Interior Design, SRM IST, Kattangulathur, Chengalpet District on the very same day without any break and the interim stay has also been made absolute on 09.11.2021. 8. The petitioner has also not submitted any resignation letter to the President or the Vice president as per the provisions of the Act in respect of his elected status on or before 07.04.2022 being the date of his nomination by the State Government as a member of the fourth respondent Council. The petitioner claims that orally he had submitted his resignation on 07.04.2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Architects Act and thereafter, on 08.04.2022, he had submitted an handwritten resignation. The oral resignation said to have been made on 07.04.2022 as well as the handwritten resignation on 08.04.2022 are concerned, the receipt of the same is denied by the fourth respondent as seen from their counter affidavit. The oral resignation said to have been made on 07.04.2022 as well as the handwritten resignation on 08.04.2022 are concerned, the receipt of the same is denied by the fourth respondent as seen from their counter affidavit. The handwritten resignation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 08.04.2022 is also not produced by the petitioner in this writ petition. 9. Earlier writ petition W.P.No.601 of 2020 was also withdrawn by the petitioner only on 21.07.2022. In that writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the first respondent under which, the first respondent has declared that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated his membership in the fourth respondent council on his resignation from the post of Professor and Dean, School of Architecture, Interior Design, SRM IST, Kattangulathur, Chengalpet District. The said order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the first respondent was stayed by this Court in W.M.P.No.702 of 2020 in W.P.No.601 of 2020 on 10.01.2020 which was in force till 21.07.2022 when the petitioner withdrew the main writ petition W.P.No.601 of 2020. 10. Section 6 of the Architects Act, 1972 which deals with the terms of office of an elected and a nominated member reads as follows: 6. Terms of office and casual vacancies.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an elected or nominated member shall hold office for a term of three years from the date of his election or nomination or until his successor has been duly elected or nominated, whichever is later. (2) An elected or nominated member may, at any time, resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the President, or in his absence, to the Vice-President, and the seat of such member shall thereupon become vacant. (2) An elected or nominated member may, at any time, resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the President, or in his absence, to the Vice-President, and the seat of such member shall thereupon become vacant. (3) A member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat— (i) if he is absent without excuse, sufficient in the opinion of the Council, from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council; or (ii) if he ceases to be a member of the body referred to in clause (a), clause (g) or clause (h) of sub-section (3) of section 3 by which he was elected or nominated, as the case may be; or (iii) in the case where he has been elected under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 3, if he ceases to hold his appointment as the head of an institution referred to in the said clause. (4) A casual vacancy in the Council shall be filled by fresh election or nomination, as the case may be, and the person so elected or nominated to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the member whose place he takes was elected or nominated. (5) Members of the Council shall be eligible for reelection or re-nomination, but not exceeding three consecutive terms. 11. The petitioner has submitted his resignation in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act only on 27.04.2022 by stating that he has been nominated to the fourth respondent Council by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore on 07.04.2022 when the nomination was made nominating the petitioner in the fourth respondent Council, the petitioner was still an elected member of the fourth respondent Council. The petitioner may contend that he was deceived by the President of the fourth respondent Council to submit his resignation once again on 27.04.2022, but there is no evidence placed on record before this Court to substantiate the petitioner's said claim. Therefore only on 27.04.2022, the petitioner had submitted his resignation as an elected member of the fourth respondent Council. Therefore, as on 07.04.2022, when the petitioner was nominated by the State Government, he was not eligible to be nominated, since he continued to hold the post as an elected member as on that date. Therefore only on 27.04.2022, the petitioner had submitted his resignation as an elected member of the fourth respondent Council. Therefore, as on 07.04.2022, when the petitioner was nominated by the State Government, he was not eligible to be nominated, since he continued to hold the post as an elected member as on that date. The petitioner is an elected member of the fourth respondent Council, elected as per the provisions of section 3(3)(c) of the Act and his term will expire as an elected member only on 19.08.2022 and as per the provisions of the Act, a person cannot be elected as well as be nominated. Subsequent to the ineligibility of the petitioner to get nominated to the fourth respondent Council, the Council had also intimated the Hon'ble Minister of Higher Education, Government of India on 25.04.2022 informing that the petitioner is not eligible to be nominated as he is already an elected member whose tenure comes to an end only on 19.08.2022. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister of Public Works, Government of Tamil Nadu by his letter dated 03.05.2022 to the fourth respondent Council has also nominated the sixth respondent viz., Thangavelu Loganathan as a member of State of Tamil Nadu in the Council of Architecture under section 3(3)(f) of the Act with effect from 28.04.2022. 12. The fourth respondent has also accepted the new nomination made by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the Hon'ble Minister's letter dated 03.05.2022 in place of the petitioner who was ineligible on the date of nomination i.e., on 07.04.2022. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the acceptance of the sixth respondent as the nominated member for the State of Tamil Nadu by the fourth respondent Council does not suffer from any infirmity. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.