Common Order in Writ Petition Nos.25744 and 27012 of 2014
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a common order dated 23 January 2015 in Writ Petition Nos.25744 and 27012 of 2014, records challenges by an architect and the Indian Institute of Architects, Chennai Centre, to forms required by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The petitioners sought to prevent the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Corporation of Chennai from requiring architects to accept responsibility for structural safety and related matters when applying for planning permission or a completion certificate, but the supplied text does not contain the Court's final decision.
What the proceedings concern
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered two petitions arising from forms that architects were required to submit to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for multi-storeyed buildings. Writ Petition No.25744 of 2014 was filed by W. Anand, and Writ Petition No.27012 of 2014 was filed by the Indian Institute of Architects, Chennai Centre.
The respondents in both petitions were:
- The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, represented by its Member Secretary.
- The Corporation of Chennai, represented by its Commissioner.
What the petitioners requested
The petitioners asked the High Court of Judicature at Madras to stop the respondents from insisting that registered architects execute five forms:
- Form for Certificate for Structural Design Sufficiency, PP-I.
- Form for Supervision, PP-II.
- Form for Supervision, CC-I.
- Form for Completion Certificate, CC-II.
- Form for Undertaking by Architect, CC-III.
The challenge concerned forms used for planning permission and completion certificates. The petitioners argued that the forms required architects to accept liability for matters for which they were not responsible, particularly structural safety. They contended that the authorities should instead require compliance with the obligations and forms specified in the National Building Code of India, 2005.
Professional responsibilities discussed
The common order reproduces material published by the Council of Architecture on architectural services. The listed services include structural design, site development, building services, obtaining statutory approvals, and periodic inspection and evaluation of construction work.
The reproduced material also states that:
- Day-to-day supervision is to be carried out by a construction manager, site supervisor or construction management agency appointed and paid by the client.
- An architect may appoint specialised consultants with the client where necessary.
- Consultants are fully responsible for their calculations, detailed design, and periodic inspection and evaluation of work entrusted to them.
- The architect is responsible for directing and integrating the consultants' work.
- The architect must exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, together with necessary general superintendence and inspection.
Relevance to property projects
Architects, developers and owners dealing with multi-storeyed building approvals in Chennai may be affected because the dispute concerns professional certifications submitted for planning permission and completion certificates. The supplied extract records the dispute and professional standards relied upon, but it does not provide the High Court of Judicature at Madras's final ruling or directions.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does this document cancel the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority forms?
The supplied text does not show that the forms were cancelled. It records the petitioners' request to stop the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Corporation of Chennai from insisting on them, but it does not include the Court's final decision.
Which building approvals were involved in the dispute?
The petitions concerned forms required for planning permission and completion certificates, particularly in relation to multi-storeyed buildings.
Why did the architects object to signing the forms?
The petitioners argued that the forms made architects accept liability for matters for which they were not responsible, especially structural safety. They wanted the authorities to follow the obligations and forms in the National Building Code of India, 2005.
Who is responsible for a specialised consultant's structural calculations?
The professional material reproduced in the common order states that consultants are fully responsible for calculations, detailed design, and periodic inspection and evaluation of work entrusted to them. The architect is responsible for directing and integrating the consultants' work.
