Delhi High Court 12.12.2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 661/2008

ABHAY PANDEY and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tyagi, Advocate

Versus

UOI and ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Randeep Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.1/UOI. Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4/AICTE Mr. Navin R. Nath, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. G. D. Goel, Advocate for respondent no.6.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

ORDER 12.12.2008 ***** Mr. Navin R. Nath has taken instructions. He is not in a position to make a statement so as to safeguard the interest of the petitioners who are presently undergoing the B.Arch. Degree course, except to say that the students of T.V.B. School of Habitat Studies who were scheduled to pass out from the said school in May 2007, and in May 2008 would be granted registration by the Council of Architecture upon their successfully completing the course and in the normal course.

The petitioners were undergoing the B.Arch course at T.V.B. School of Habitat Studies, an institution affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh University. The said school was being run in a non conforming area and was accordingly sealed. The respondent University, so as to save the careers of the students, who are about 140 in number, started holding classes in the University campus with the same faculty that was teaching the students in T.V.B. School of Habitat Studies. The classes are being run in the University School of Architecture and

Planning and the faculty members have been employed on contract basis. The stand of the respondent University, AICTE as well as UOI is that the Council of Architecture cannot refuse to grant registration to such like students upon their passing out from the said course with a B. Arch. Degree granted by the respondent University. On the other hand, the Council of Architecture insists that the school of Architecture and Planning of the GGSIPU University is bound to obtain recognition from the Council of Architecture before the students passing out therefrom can be granted registration by the said Council. According to the Council of Architecture, the school of Architecture and Planning of the GGSIP University does not meet the norms laid down by it for recognition. The Council of Architecture has repeatedly insisted that the students of T.V.B. School of Habitat Studies should attend classes in the second shift at Vaastu Kala Academy, Vasant Kunj in the second shift for which it has granted instant recognition. It also appears that the respondent University has not affiliated Vaastu Kala Academy in respect of the 2nd shift as the said academy is not in a position to obtain the permission from the AICTE. Moreover, Vaastu Kala Academy has voluntarily sought disaffiliation from the respondent University w.e.f. the academic session 2008-2009 onwards and has got itself affiliated from that session onwards with IGNOU.

Looking to the manner in which the Council of Architecture has proceeded to grant instant recognition to Vaastu Kala Academy for holding the second shift, and its repeated insistence that the students of the erstwhile T.V.B. School of Habitat Studies should take admission with the said academy, and its refusal to grant recognition to the University School of Architecture and Planning of the GGSIP University, I direct that each member of the Council of Architecture (who are stated to be seven in number) should file an affidavit in this Court disclosing their direct or indirect stake or interest in Vaastu Kala Academy. They should also disclose if they or any of their blood relations have any concern with the said Academy. The Chairman of the Council of Architecture should in his affidavit make a complete disclosure of the Constitution, the structure of the Council and its office bearers. The complete record of the Council of Architecture dealing with the aspect of recognition to Vaastu Kala Academy and its refusal to grant recognition in respect of the course being run by the

respondent University for the petitioners and other students similarly situated should also be produced on the next date. The affidavits be filed within one week.

In the meantime, the classes being held by the respondent University shall continue to be held and the petitioners shall be entitled to continue to appear in the examinations being conducted by the University. I further direct the impleadment of Vaastu Kala Academy. Amended memo of parties along with process fee be filed within two days. Notice be taken dasti as well. List on 18.12.2008. Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI,J DECEMBER 12, 2008