Architects Act prevails over municipal licensing, while qualified engineers may still perform related design and supervision work.

A Central statute governing architects was treated as an exhaustive code for registration, practice and discipline, so inconsistent municipal licensing requirements could not continue against registered architects. The Court therefore held that architects registered under the Architects Act were not required to obtain a separate municipal licence. At the same time, the Act was read as protecting the title of architect rather than creating a monopoly over all design, supervision or construction work. Qualified engineers and surveyors could perform such work if they did not hold themselves out as architects, and the challenge seeking to exclude them failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 were required to obtain licences under the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the bye-laws framed thereunder. (ii) Whether engineers or surveyors with necessary qualifications could discharge functions ordinarily performed by architects and whether the relevant classification was valid.

Issue (i): Whether architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 were required to obtain licences under the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and the bye-laws framed thereunder.

Analysis: The Architects Act was treated as a complete and exhaustive code governing registration, practice and disciplinary control of architects. The provisions of Section 372 of the municipal statute and the bye-laws were held to operate in the same field and to be inconsistent with the Central enactment. On that basis, the earlier municipal licensing requirement could not survive against registered architects.

Conclusion: The requirement of a municipal licence for architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972 was held inapplicable, and the Corporation was restrained from insisting upon such licences.

Issue (ii): Whether engineers or surveyors with necessary qualifications could discharge functions ordinarily performed by architects and whether the relevant classification was valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the Statement of Objects and Reasons showed that the Architects Act protected the title of architect but did not create an exclusive monopoly over design, supervision or construction work. The Court accepted that qualified engineers could engage in such work so long as they did not hold themselves out as architects. The objection based on Article 14 was not accepted, and the classification challenge failed to the extent it sought to exclude engineers from such activity.

Conclusion: Qualified engineers were held free to perform work ordinarily done by architects, and the petitioners were not entitled to restrain the Corporation from regulating licensing in favour of such engineers.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of relieving registered architects from municipal licensing, while the broader claim to exclude qualified engineers from comparable work was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later Central statute constitutes an exhaustive regulatory code on a subject in the Concurrent List, inconsistent State law provisions operating in the same field yield to the Central law; however, that statute may still protect a professional title without making all related work the exclusive preserve of that profession.

---