Enter College / University / City name:

Home > Delhi > Architecture > New Delhi > Council of Architecture


Council of Architecture, New Delhi, Delhi


Contact


Council of Architecture, New Delhi, Delhi
Address: Plot / Street / Area
India Habitat Centre, Core 6A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road
New Delhi (District New Delhi)
Delhi, India
Pin Code : 110003


Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi is a Central Authority under the control of Government of India.
Council of Architecture is situated in New Delhi of Delhi state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. New Delhi comes under New Delhi Tehsil, New Delhi District.

Fax # of Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi is +91-11-24647746.

email ID(s) is Council of Architecture New Delhi Delhi

Website of Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi is http://www.coa.gov.in/.


Contact Details of Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi are : Telephone: +91-11-24654172, 24648415



Courses

Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi runs course(s) in Architecture stream(s).

Profile of Council of Architecture

The Council of Architecture (COA) has been constituted by the Government of India under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972, enacted by the Parliament of India, which came into force on 1st September, 1972. The Act provides for registration of Architects, standards of education, recognized qualifications and standards of practice to be complied with by the practicing architects. The Council of Architecture is charged with the responsibility to regulate the education and practice of profession throughout India besides maintaining the register of architects. For this purpose, the Government of India has framed Rules and Council of Architecture has framed Regulations as provided for in the Architects Act, with the approval of Government of India.

Any person desirous of carrying on the profession of Architect must have registered himself with Council of Architecture. For the purpose of registration, one must possess the requisite qualification as appended to the Architects Act, after having undergone the education in accordance with the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983. The registration with Council of Architecture entitles a person to practice the profession of architecture, provided he holds a Certificate of Registration with up-to-date renewals. The registration also entitles a person to use the title and style of Architect. The title and style of architect can also be used by a firm of architects, of which all partners are registered with COA. Limited Companies, Private/Public Companies, societies and other juridical persons are not entitled to use the title and style of architect nor are they entitled to practice the profession of architecture. If any person falsely claims to be registered or misuses title and style of architect, such acts tantamount to committing of a criminal offence, which is punishable under section 36 or 37 (2) of the Architects Act, 1972.

The practice of profession of an architect is governed by the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 (as amended in 2003), which deals with professional ethics and etiquette, conditions of engagement and scale of charges, architectural competition guidelines etc. Pursuant to these Regulations, the Council of Architecture has framed guidelines governing the various aspects of practice. An architect is required to observe professional conduct as stipulated in the Regulations of 1989 and any violation thereof shall constitute a professional misconduct, which will attract disciplinary action as stipulated under section 30 of the Architects Act, 1972.

There are 135 institutions, which impart architectural education in India leading to recognized qualifications. The standards of education being imparted in these institutions (constituent colleges/departments of universities, deemed universities, affiliated colleges/schools, IITs, NITs and autonomous institutions) is governed by Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983, which set forth the requirement of eligibility for admission, course duration, standards of staff and accommodation, course content, examination etc. These standards as provided in the said Regulations are required to be maintained by the institutions. The COA oversees the maintenance of the standards periodically by way of conducting inspections through Committees of Experts. The COA is required to keep the Central Government informed of the standards being maintained by the institutions and is empowered to make recommendations to the Government of India with regard to recognition and de-recognition of a qualification.

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Council of Architecture

AMEND the Architects Act (Council of Architecture)
News: 29th October, 2015
AMEND the Architects Act


Public Notice ()

Notification of Advanced Studies in Architecture and Academic Unit of Council (Advertisement)

National Aptitude Test in Architecture NATA 2012 (Public Notice)

Printing of Magazine (Tender)

NATA for admission to B Arch (Public Notice)

Misuse of title architect (Public Notice)

Maintenance of Nata server (Tender)

National Aptitude Test in Architecture (Entrance Test)

Public Notice for vacanices (Advertisement)

Attention for not approved B Arch course (Public Notice)

NATA 2015 (Public Notice)

AMEND the Architects Act (News)


Media coverage of Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi, Delhi

NATA Made Mandatory For Architecture Students Anywhere In The Country, In Any University or college

Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:00:58 AM EST

In a major step that affects the future of many architecture students, National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA) has been made into a mandatory requirement for getting admission into an architecture programme anywhere in the country, in any university or college. The council of architecture (COA) took this decision in their executive council meeting, which was held on March 21, 2007. The meeting decided that NATA should be made compulsory for all architectural institutions in the country from the academic session 2007-2008 for admission to the first year of five-year degree course in Architecture.
Sources within the COA inform that architectural institutions all over the country participated in NATA and about 8,500 students appeared in the test for admission to a B.Arch for the session 2007-08. Many institutions, including NITs, have shown their willingness to join the test while many state governments have already conveyed their consent to participate in NATA from the next academic session.

The NATA test has been held by the COA through its academic unit - the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Architecture (NIASA) at Pune for admission to the first year of a five-year B.Arch. NATA is an online examination devised to fulfil the mandatory requirement of holding an aptitude test prior to admission to five-year B.Arch. degree course, as prescribed under the COA s Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983.


For the academic session of 2008-2009, NATA is being conducted by COA for admission to first year of five-year B.Arch degree course at all COA approved architectural institutions in the country (including NITs, IITs, government institutions, government aided institutions, universities, deemed universities and private universities established by a Central or State Legislature and other private institutions). It shall be mandatory for every candidate seeking admission to five-year B.Arch. The course in any COA approved architectural institution in the country to obtain valid NATA score in addition to any other selection procedure whether based on common entrance examination or marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The evaluation through NATA shall be a mandatory requirement for candidates for eventual registration as an architect on successful completion of a five-year B.Arch degree course. Further, any aptitude test conducted by individual institution or by any agency or the authority holding a common entrance examination, where such common entrance examination is mandated, shall no longer be valid for the purposes of admission to COA approved architectural institutions in such states. It may be pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court of India, in its order on February 29 in SLP(C) No. 3964 of 2008, has granted stay to the interim order by Bombay High Court in WP No. 5004 of 2007, filed by the Marathwada Mitra Mandal s College of Architecture, which had challenged the authority of COA to conduct NATA for all the institutions.

JARNAIL SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : March 19, 2008

Jarnail Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present :
Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

M.M. KUMAR, J.
The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is that directions be issued to the respondents to grant them license of Architect as has
been done in the cases of other persons, who are having less qualification and experience than the petitioners. It is conceded position that the petitioners are diploma holder in Architectural Assistantship and Civil Engineering. They do not answer the qualifications prescribed by Bye-law 2(iv) and 62 read with Schedule I of Haryana Municipal Building Bye-Laws 1982 (for brevity ‘Byelaws’).

According to the bye-laws for registration as an Architect, a Bachelor degree in Architect awarded by any Indian University established by an Act of Central or State Legislature or National Diploma in Architecture awarded by All India Council for Technical Education or Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) awarded by the Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur etc., is required. The petitioners do not have any of the aforementioned degree or diploma. Therefore, no direction to the respondents could be issued for granting the petitioners registration as Architect.

Only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that persons similarly situated to them have been granted registration and the petitioners are being deprived of the benefit on extraneous consideration.

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once Bye-law 2(iv) and 62 of the Bye-laws has prescribed specific qualification in the discipline of Architecture then a person with Diploma in Architecture Assistantship and Civil Engineering, like the petitioners cannot claim the right of registration as an Architect. The rules do not permit registration of any such person and the same cannot be claimed as a right in a Court of law.

Therefore, the petitioners would not have any legal right to seek a direction from this Court to respondents for performance of a corresponding
duty because there would be no legal obligation incurred by them. If any oneelse against the rules have been granted registration, then the remedy lies elsewhere, but that does constitute a basis for issuance of a direction to the respondents to register the petitioners as Architect. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed.

( M.M. KUMAR )
JUDGE

( SABINA )
JUDGE

R K JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP No. 14543 of 2001

Date of Decision: October 8, 2009

R.K. Jain …Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others …Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.
Challenge in the instant petition is to order dated 20.8.1998 (P-3) and order dated 20.12.2000 (P-7) passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh & Panchkula. The application of the petitioner for registration as a Valuer under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity,‘the Act’) has been rejected by the aforesaid orders on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary qualification laid down in Rule 8A(2)(i)(A) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner possess a Diploma Certificate of Draftsman from the Government of India C.W.P. No. 14543 of 2001 (Ministry of Labour). He has claimed to be working as an Architect/Valuer since 1968. He is registered as an Architect with the Council of Architecture under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 (P-1). He applied to the Chief Commissioner of Income Taxrespondent No. 2 for registration as a Valuer under the provisions of the Act on 17.3.1998 (P-2). The Income Tax Officer-respondent No. 4 forwarded his application to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak-respondent No. 3, who in turn sent the same to the Chief Commissioner-respondent No. 2. The application was eventually rejected on 20.8.1998 (P-3). The petitioner made further application seeking review of the order dated 20.8.1998, which after thorough examination met the same fate. The earlier view taken by the Chief Commissioner that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification as laid down in Rule 8(A)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules was reaffirmed, vide order dated 20.12.2000 (P-7). Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged both the orders.

In the written statement the broad factual position has not been disputed and it has been reiterated that the petitioner does not answer the qualification envisaged by Rule 8(A)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules.

The principal ground urged by Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition is that the petitioner has been illegally non-suited as he fulfilled the alternative qualification as envisaged by clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of the Rules, namely, that he is a registered Architect which would entitle him to registration as a Valuer under Section 34AB of the Act.

Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been working and has acquired rich experience in the field of architecture/valuer/ engineering since 1956 for the last 41 years. In that regard he has referred to his application dated 17.3.1998 (P-2), which shows that he worked for 11½ years in Hisar Textile Mills a sister concern of Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Delhi. Thereafter he has been in independent practice as an Architect/Valuer and Engineer since 1967.

He has been registered with the Municipal Council at Rohtak as well as Council of Architecture, New Delhi, for about 30 years and claims to have sorted out technical problems of architectural, engineering and in valuation field.

None has appeared to support the impugned orders.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it would first be necessary to examine the provisions of Section 34AB of the Act. According to the aforesaid section the Chief Commissioner or Director General are the competent authorities to register a Valuer and enter his name on the Register of Valuers which is required to be maintained. It is further provided that different qualifications may be prescribed for Valuers of different classes of assets. The qualifications for registration of a Valuer have been laid down in Rule 8A of the Rules. The relevant part of the aforesaid rule reads thus:-

8A. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 34AB, the qualifications for registration as valuers of different classes of asset shall be as specified in sub-rules (2) to (11).

(2) A valuer of immovable property (other than agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries) shall have the following qualifications, namely:-

(i) he must-

(A) be a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a
recognised university; or

(B) be a post-graduate in valuation of real estate from a recognised university; or

(C) possess a qualification recognised by the Central Government for
recruitment to superior services or posts under the Central Government
in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning; and

A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that a Valuer of immovable property which is not to include agricultural lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries, must possess the qualification of being a graduate in civil engineering, architecture or town planning of a recognised university or post-graduate in valuation of real estate from a recognised university or he must have qualification recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services or posts under the Central Government in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning.

It is conceded as a fact that the petitioner is not a graduate in any of the disciplines nor he is a post-graduate. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring his case under Rule 8A(2)(i)(C) of the Rules by arguing that the petitioner possess the qualification in the field of architecture. The aforesaid argument can also not be accepted because the qualifications envisaged by Rule 8A)(2)(i)(C) are that a Valuer must possess a qualification recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to superior services. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the petitioner possess any such qualification which has been recognised by the Central Government for recruitment to
superior services or posts under the Central Government. Such qualification is required to be in the field of civil engineering, architecture or town planning. The qualification possessed by the petitioner is a Diploma in Draftsman which is far from answering the qualification prescribed by Rule 8A(2)(i) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 20.8.1998 and 20.12.2000 (P-3 & P-7) do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

The case of the petitioner for registration as Valuer under Section 34AB of the Act has been rightly rejected. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(JASWANT SINGH)
JUDGE

Summary: Council of Architecture, New Delhi Delhi website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.