JUDGMENT : N. Nagaresh, J. The petitioner, Managing Partner of M/s.PRS Builders, a registered Partnership Firm engaged in construction, entered into a contract dated 08.08.2019 with the 3 rd respondent, a political party, for the construction of its State Headquarters at Thiruvananthapuram, pursuant to the work order dated 01.07.2019, wherein the 2 nd respondent was appointed as the Consultant Architect and Project Management Consultant. 2. As per the contract, the petitioner was entitled to payments based on certified bills, with 60% being released directly and the remaining 40% upon the 2 nd respondent’s recommendation. Though the petitioner completed most of the work and submitted eight bills between 13.02.2024 and 25.03.2025, totalling Rs. 1,34,95,104.51, the 2 nd respondent failed to recommend the balance payments without assigning any reason, resulting in severe financial loss and an interest liability of Rs. 39 lakhs. Despite repeated representations to both respondents, no relief was granted. 3. The 2 nd respondent’s persistent failure to fulfill his professional duties amounts to professional misconduct under the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989, warranting disciplinary action. A complaint was duly submitted to the 1 st respondent-the Council of Architecture (CoA), along with supporting documents (Ext.P20), but no action was taken, which amounts to a dereliction of the CoA’s statutory duty under the Architects Act, 1972. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the 1 st respondent to conduct an expeditious inquiry into the complaint and to take action against the 2 nd respondent in accordance with law, contends the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 5. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 1 st respondent to constitute a Committee as contemplated under Rule 35 Chapter VII of Council of Architecture Rules, 1973. The request of the petitioner is being of a statutory nature, it would be only just and proper that the complaints /representation be considered by the competent authority. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P20 and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, if necessary with notice to affected parties. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the complaints made by the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P20 and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, if necessary with notice to affected parties. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the complaints made by the petitioner. A decision on the constitution of the Committee shall be taken within a period of six months positively.