Full Text
Translation output
$-10-13 I HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 827/2014 & CMAppls. 1664/2014, 6125/2014, 13224/2015
KALLOL DAS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadaniwith Mr. Ashok Anand, Advocates
W.P.(C) 827/2014 & CMAppls. 1664/2014, 6125/2014, 13224/2015
KALLOL DAS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadaniwith Mr. Ashok Anand, Advocates
VERSUS
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath with Mr. Sharvan, Sahny Advs. for R-1
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Mr. Krishanu Barua and Mr. Gaurav Dwivedi, Advs. for UOI
Mr. Vedanta Varma with Mr. Akhil Kumar Gola, Advs. for R-3
Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath with Mr. Sharvan, Sahny Advs. for R-1
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Mr. Krishanu Barua and Mr. Gaurav Dwivedi, Advs. for UOI
Mr. Vedanta Varma with Mr. Akhil Kumar Gola, Advs. for R-3
WITH
W.P.(C) 839/2014 & CM Appl. 1701/2014, 6068/2014, 13221/2015
GOLDIARORA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadani with Mr. AshokAnand, Advocates
GOLDIARORA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadani with Mr. AshokAnand, Advocates
VERSUS
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI AND
W.P.(C) 7656/2014 , ABDUL KALAAM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Adv.
Through: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
COUNCIL OFARCHITECTURE & ORS. Respondents Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI 2016:DHC:8970 n
AND
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI 2016:DHC:8970 n
AND
W.P.(C) 838/2014 &CMAppls. 1700/2014, 6108/2014, 13223/2015
NIDHI GUPTA &ORS ^
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadani with Mr. Ashok Anand, Advocates
NIDHI GUPTA &ORS ^
Through: Mr. O.P. Bhadani with Mr. Ashok Anand, Advocates
VERSUS
Sahny Advs. forR-1 Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Mr. Krishanu Barua and Mr. Gaurav Dwivedi, Advs. forUOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
«/„ 25.02.2016
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that in view of the dismissal of the speeial leave petition being SLP (Civil) 1234/2016 after leaving the question oflaw open, respondent No. 1is not insisting that the present petitioners elear the Architecture Competency Test. He further states that the petitioners shall be registered under Section 25 of the
Architeets Aet, 1972 within a period of eight weeks. He elarifies that respondent No. 1 in consultation with the Indian Institute of Architeets is planning a comprehensive academie review of the Indian Institute of
Architects (IIA) course.
The statements made by learned counsel for respondent No.l are aeeepted by this Court and respondent No. I is held bound by the same.
In view of the aforesaid statements, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's interest are fully protected. Consequently, the present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of as satisfied. lU
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 25, 2016 NG
«/„ 25.02.2016
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that in view of the dismissal of the speeial leave petition being SLP (Civil) 1234/2016 after leaving the question oflaw open, respondent No. 1is not insisting that the present petitioners elear the Architecture Competency Test. He further states that the petitioners shall be registered under Section 25 of the
Architeets Aet, 1972 within a period of eight weeks. He elarifies that respondent No. 1 in consultation with the Indian Institute of Architeets is planning a comprehensive academie review of the Indian Institute of
Architects (IIA) course.
The statements made by learned counsel for respondent No.l are aeeepted by this Court and respondent No. I is held bound by the same.
In view of the aforesaid statements, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's interest are fully protected. Consequently, the present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of as satisfied. lU
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 25, 2016 NG
JUDGMENT