Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent.
2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2014 by which W.P.(C) No.12903 of 2013, filed by the 3rd respondent, has been dismissed. We admit the appeal and proceed to hear the same finally.
3. The 2nd respondent on behalf of 1st respondent has issued a quotation notice dated 28.10.2010 inviting offers of design (plan, view, elevation, Section etc) from qualified and registered Architects for getting Architectural Consultancy for the construction of a building. The 3rd respondent, M/s.P.C. Rasheed & Associates submitted an offer which has been accepted. The writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of respondents 1 and 2 accepting the offer of 3rd respondent and praying for quashing of entire records relating to Ext.P3 and quashing the offer submitted by 3rd respondent.
A further prayer was made that a direction be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the quotation submitted by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition. In the judgment it is observed that the questionnaire answered by the petitioner in Ext.R1(b), i.e. the details regarding the firm to which the 3rd respondent is a partner, indicates the qualification of one of the partners, N.Muhammed, as registered Architect. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the work was awarded in favour of the firm in which the 3rd respondent is a partner and that decision is not illegal or arbitrary and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the decision contended that in the quotation itself there is a specific indication that offers are invited from 'registered Architects'. The 3rd respondent had submitted an application and signed it as a registered engineer and not as a registered architect. According to him, the person submitting the offer has to take the entire responsibility and submit the application in his name with all his details. The 3rd respondent himself has submitted the application so that in his name the contract was awarded and agreement was entered into, who according to the appellant, was not competent to get the contract. He submits that the learned Single Judge did not advert to the said issue and the writ petition was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the firm, M/s. P.C. Rasheed & Associates, had submitted the application in which the name of Architect was mentioned as 'N.Mohammed' and in Column 1(a) and 1(b) it is declared that he is a registered architect. Hence there was no error in granting the contract.
6. We have considered the submission made by the parties and perused the records. The quotation dated 28.10.2010 was to the following effect:
“Sub:- Kerala State Wakf Board, Regional Office, Kozhikode - Preparation of plan including design for constructing a building in the property newly purchased - regarding invitation of quotation.
Offers are invited from registered architects for the preparation of plan (including design) for constructing a building with the following facilities for the purpose of Kozhikode Regional Office in 24.45 cents in R.S. No.21/6 situated in Kozhikode Kasaba Village, Karyakunnu Desom behind Sreekanteswara Temple in possession of the Wakf Board.”
7. Reading of the above indicates that offers were invited from 'registered architects'. Facts of the case disclose that the offer was submitted by M/s.P.C. Rasheed & Associates, which is a firm and 3rd respondent in his behalf submitted the offer. The 3rd respondent admittedly is a registered engineer, which is clear from the averments made in the counter affidavit. In the questionnaire in reply to Column 1(a); i.e. 'Are you a qualified architect ?', the answer was; “Yes, our architect N. Mohammed is a registered architect.” Even in the counter affidavit or in the questionnaire there is no indication that N.Mohammed, the named Architect is a partner of the firm or firm constitutes only registered architects.
8. “Architect” is defined under Section 2(a) of the Architects Act 1972 which reads as under:
“2. Definitions.- xx xx (a) “architect” means a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register.”
The word “register” is defined in Section 2(e) which means the register of architects maintained under Section 23. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:
“23. Preparation and maintenance of register.- (1) The Central Government shall, as soon as may be, cause to be prepared in the manner hereinafter provided a register of architects for India.
(2) The Council shall upon its constitution assume the duty of maintaining the register in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(3) The register shall include the following particulars, namely:
(a) the full name with date of birth, nationality and residential address of the architect:
(b) his qualification for registration and the date on which he obtained that qualification and the authority which conferred it:
(c) the date of his first admission to the register:
(d) his professional address: and
(e) such further particulars as may be prescribed by rules.”
A perusal of Section 23 indicates that particulars to be mentioned in the register relates to name, date of birth, nationality, address of the architect, qualification for registration and other personal details pertaining to the architect.
9. The 3rd respondent who claims to have submitted the application, is admittedly not a registered architect. We are of the view that respondents 1 and 2 committed error in accepting the offer from a person who is not a registered Architect. Hence the process is to be held as vitiated. The learned Single Judge did not advert to the said condition in the quotation and hence judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld.
10. In view of the forgoing reasons, we allow the Writ Appeal setting aside the judgment of learned Single Judge. We direct respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision on the tenders already received or may invite a fresh tender in view of the fact that sufficient time has been elapsed. We observe that respondents 1 and 2 shall complete the process as expeditiously as possible within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/29/10