Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an architect with a master's degree from the United States, claimed to be highly qualified and sought nomination as a member of the Council of Architecture from Karnataka under the Architects Act, 1972. He submitted an application with his resume on 4 January 2021, well before the term of the previous member ended, and sent reminders on 23 June 2021 and 13 August 2021, but received no response from the State Government. During the pendency of his writ petition, the State nominated the second respondent, an architect, as its member. The petitioner amended his petition to implead the second respondent and challenged the nomination, contending that no criteria, interview, or selection process was followed, and that he possessed superior qualifications. He argued that the Act required a transparent procedure and that the Council’s important functions necessitated a merit‑based selection. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, contended that Section 3(3)(f) of the Act confers absolute discretion on the State Government to nominate any architect from the State, without any statutory requirement for qualifications, advertisement, or interview. The State maintained that the nomination was a policy decision and that the petitioner had no legal right to enforce a selection process. The Union of India and the Council of Architecture, through the Deputy Solicitor General, supported the State’s position and highlighted that since the Act’s enactment in 1972, no such procedure had ever been prescribed. The High Court analyzed the statutory scheme and held that Section 3(3)(f) simply provides that the Council shall consist of “an architect from each State nominated by the Government of that State.” The provision does not lay down any eligibility criteria, qualifications, experience, or method of selection. The court observed that where the legislature has left the power unfettered, it is a matter of executive policy, and courts cannot judicially dictate a selection procedure. The petitioner’s argument that he was the most suitable candidate was irrelevant because the law does not mandate comparative evaluation. In the absence of any allegation of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions, the court found no ground to interfere under Article 226. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law – Nomination to Statutory Council – Judicial Review – Architects Act, 1972 (Section 3(3)(f)) – The petitioner, a registered architect, applied for nomination as a member of the Council of Architecture from Karnataka, challenging the nomination of the 2nd respondent on the ground that no selection procedure or interview was conducted. The High Court held that Section 3(3)(f) vests unguided discretion in the State Government to nominate an architect from the State without prescribing any qualifications, criteria, or selection process. The power is purely administrative and a policy decision, not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 in the absence of any allegation of malafides or arbitrariness. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit. (Paras 11-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner had a legal right to be considered for nomination as a member of the Council of Architecture under Section 3(3)(f) of the Architects Act, 1972, and whether the nomination of the 2nd respondent by the State Government was valid and lawful.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed as lacking merit; court held that Section 3(3)(f) vests complete discretion in the State Government, and the nomination is a policy decision not amenable to judicial review in the absence of any statutory requirement for a selection process.
Law Points
- Under Section 3(3)(f) of the Architects Act
- 1972
- the State Government has absolute discretion to nominate an architect as Member of the Council of Architecture
- no statutory criteria
- interview or selection process is required
- such policy decisions are immune from judicial review under Article 226 unless mala fides or arbitrariness shown.
