A. Sheik Mohamed vs The District Collector

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner, namely, A. Sheik Mohamed has finally come to this Court on third occasion by challenging the impugned order

passed by the Respondent, the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli ordering to delete the name of the Petitioner from the approved list of the panel of

Registered Engineers under Class IA category in Tiruchirapalli District. It is stated in the impugned order, dated 11.1.2008, that inclusion of the

name of the Petitioner in the approved panel, in which the name of the Petitioner was included, has been done without the concurrence of the

Engineer-in-Chief, W.R.O. & Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Madras and without the approval of board of

Engineers.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order deleting the Petitioner''s name from the approved list of

panel of Private Engineers under Clause I A category in Trichirapalli District was against the principle of natural justice as there was no notice given

to the Petitioner.

Secondly, it was also contended that there is no Rule permitting the District Collector to cancel or undo the order passed by another District

Collector, namely, his predecessor in Office. While so, the impugned order deleting the name of the Petitioner from the approved list of panel of

Private Engineers under Clause I A category in Trichirapalli suffers from want of jurisdiction and therefore, the same is sought to be challenged as it

is bad in law.

The third submission made to challenge the impugned order is that when the Petitioner made his application for empanelment in Tiruchirappalli

District in the year 1994 in class-II category with experience of 15 years possessed by the Petitioner, the Tiruchirappalli District Collector

accepting his qualification, empaneled the name of the Petitioner in the Tiruchirappalli District and the said panel was also approved by the Board

of Engineers and therefore, the order, dated 8.1.2005, is only an upgradation from one category to another. While so, the impugned order deleting

the name of the Petitioner has no basis to stand.

It is further submitted that the present impugned order is nothing but a clear indication of mala fide attitude of the Respondent for the reason that

the Petitioner is visiting Court frequently alleging infringement of his right and in a bid to take vengeance, the present impugned order came to be

passed without referring any Rules under Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent would submit that the Petitioner''s name was deleted from

the approved list of panel of Private Engineers under Class IA category in Trichirappalli District, for the reason that neither the approval of the

Board of Engineers nor the formal approval from the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Chennai has been obtained for inclusion of the name of the

individual in Class IA category. Further it is also contended that as per Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules 1966 the

approval of the Board of Engineers is necessary for the inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the panel of the private engineers as there was no

approval of board of engineers, it is not desirable to allow the individual to continue in the panel of Private Engineers in class I A category,

therefore it was contended that the name of the Petitioner was ordered to be deleted in the panel of the approved Private Engineers under class IA

category in Tiruchirappalli District in proceedings of the District Collector in D. Dis.46995/2006(D1) dated 11.1.2008 and on that basis, prayed

for no interference with the impugned order.

Heard the parties.

The Petitioner is a Chartered Engineer equipped with rich experience of more than 20 years and he is also eligible for including his name in class

I (A) category panel engineer as per the Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act 1966. Though, the Petitioner''s name was included in the

panel of engineers under class I in Pudukottai District instead of class I(A), based on the proposal sent by the Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai

Building and Construction (Maintenance Circle), he moved the another application under Rule 11(A) of Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing)

Rules, 1966, which provides that private engineers possessing the prescribed qualifications in the table may register their names in one or more

Districts or in all Districts subject to the inclusion of their names in the panel of Registered Engineers of the District concerned. The Petitioner

having fully qualified for empanelment under class I(A) in accordance with Rule 11(A) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules 1966

made an application to empanelment under class 1(A). The same was not considered and therefore, he filed a writ petition No. 1514 of 2010, this

Court by order dated 31.3.2010 after analyzing provisions of 11(A) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings(Licensing) Rules 1966 directed the

Respondents to pass necessary orders to include the name of the Petitioner in the panel of private practicing engineers under class 1(A) in all other

districts in the light of Rule 11(A) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules 1966 within a period of six weeks from 21.6.2010.

Pursuant to the said order, the Respondents passed the impugned order without even applying their mind on the order passed by this Court in

W.P. No. 1514 of 2010 dated 31.3.2010. When the order passed by this Court as well as the Rule 11(A) clearly shows that any private engineer

with requisite qualification may register their name in one or more districts or in all districts subject to the inclusion of their names in the panel of

registered engineers in their districts concerned, the Respondent should include their names since his name was included in the panel of registered

engineers.

The case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was originally made an application in order to include his name in the class II category. The request

of the Petitioner was duly considered after accepting the application made by the Petitioner the Petitioners name was recommended by the board

of engineers in the 329th meeting held on 30.8.1994 for his inclusion in the panel of Private Practising Engineers for Tiruchy District under Class-II

category(class two) for the purpose of issuing Structural Soundness Certificates for public buildings under the purview of the Tamilnadu Public

Buildings Licensing Act 1966 and rules covered thereunder. Subsequently, by proceedings passed by the District Collector in D.

Dis.91796/94(D1) dated 24.12.1994, the name of the Petitioner was registered under class II for furnishing Structural Soundness Certificate for

the buildings in Tiruchirappalli District. The Petitioner made his application in the class IA category and on the basis of his application, the

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings Construction and Maintenance Circle made a recommendation for the upgradation

of panel engineers into class IA in the prescribed proforma for taking further action under Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Public Building licensing Act

1965 and Rules 1966. Thereafter, the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli also ordered by his proceedings dated 8.1.2006 to register the name of

the Petitioner under class IA category for furnishing Structural Soundness Certificate for buildings above Rs. 30 lakhs in Tiruchirappalli District.

When the Petitioner''s name has been registered in class II category subsequently on his further application it was upgraded to be included in the

class IA category and finally, the name of the Petitioner was found also included in the list of registered engineers under class IA category.

While so, the impugned order deleting the name of the Petitioner from the approved list of Private Engineers under class IA category in

Tiruchirappalli District on flimsy reason that it has been done without the concurrence of the Engineer-in-Chief, W.R.O. & Chief

Engineer(General), Public Works Department, Chepauk and without the approval of the board of engineers is not acceptable as the said reasoning

is not supported by any Rule or any Provision. The records produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner had

approached the court frequently for inclusion of his name in the Tiruchirappalli District. When the Petitioner filed W.P. No. 2167 of 2006, this

Court, by its order dated 30.1.2006, directed the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.4.2005 for inclusion of the

name in the list of Registered Engineers under class IA category in Tiruvallur District under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings

(Licensing) Act, 1965 and the Rules made in accordance with law. Subsequently the Petitioner''s name was included in the list of class IA category

in Tiruchirappalli District. For reference Rule 11 A is extracted here under:

Private Engineers possessing the qualifications specified the Table may register their names in one or more Districts or in all Districts subject to

inclusion of their names in the panel of Registered Engineers for the District concerned.

A mere reading of 11A shows that the Petitioner''s name can be included not only in one or more Districts, but in all Districts subject to

inclusion of the name in the panel of Registered Engineers in the District concerned. If he makes an application in all the Districts under Rule 11A

which indicates that any person who wants to get his name included in one or more Districts subject to inclusion of the name of the registered

engineers in the District concerned, the same should be considered. Therefore, the present impugned order deleting the name of the Petitioner from

approved list of Private Engineers class-IA in Tiruchirappalli District for the reasons that the same has not been approved by the Board of Engineer

and the concurrence of the Engineer-in-Chief was not made, does not merit acceptance.

In view of this, it is made clear that Rule 11 A is not a bar to get his name included in any number of Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu and

accordingly the impugned order deleting the name of the Petitioner is liable to be interfered with, hence, the same is set aside and the writ petition is

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.