R.Ramaraju v. Council Of Architecture

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD W.P.No.21501 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.22490 & 22491 of 2017 R.Ramaraju ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Council of Architecture "India Habitat Centre"

Core 6A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003 Represented by its Registrar 2.Anna University Chennai Guindy, Chennai - 600 025 Represented by its Registrar 3.School of Architecture and Planning Anna University ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to conduct proper inspection on all the Architecture Institutions falling under its purview and fix the annual intake of students as per the actual status of faculties and facilities available therein.

For petitioner : Mr.A.Sivakumar For respondents : Mr.R.Sagadevan for R1 Mr.M.Vijayakumar for R2&R3

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Instant public interest litigation has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to conduct proper inspection on all the Architecture Institutions falling under its purview and fix the annual intake of students as per the actual status of faculties and facilities available therein.

2. Facts in brief, leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner is an Architect (CA/89/12718) registered with the Council of Architecture (CoA), namely the 1st respondent herein and a Fellow Member (F-7716) of the Professionals Body, the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA), and elected twice as the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Chapter of IIA and being in active participation serving the Architects Fraternity for the past two decades as well as in the Council of Architecture as its Advisor or Representative or Inspector, almost in all areas of its activities and being a head of an Architectural Institution imparting full-time instructions for recognized qualifications under The Architects Act, 1972 and affiliated to Anna University Chennai.

3. It is further averred in the affidavit that the 2nd respondent University is established by an Act of Tamil Nadu, under which the School of Architecture and Planning (SAP), the 3rd respondent herein is one among four Constituent Institutions, imparting Architectural Education from its inception for the past six decades through its academic programmes such as Under Graduate, Post Graduate, Post Graduate by Research, and Doctorate apart from Post Graduate Programme in Planning.

4. The petitioner has submitted that the 2nd respondent University, which is not only imparting higher education in Engineering and Technology including Architecture, but is also discharging public functions and duties by affiliating Educational Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu, thereby prescribing course contents and conducting examinations & evaluations leading to awarding Degrees, that means it is the sole Authority of Tamil Nadu, which only empowered in the State to grant Degrees in the disciplines of Engineering, Technology as well as Architecture.

It is a sole affiliating University, its role is widened further ensuring qualities both physical as well as functional matters at the affiliated Institutions in providing basic infrastructures as well as imparting Programmes efficiently on one side and conducting periodical Examinations & Evaluations testing the performance level of Students on the other side, by which qualified enabled Professionals in the field of Engineering, Technology and Architecture could only come out from the hands of 2nd respondent University in Tamil Nadu and therefore its responsibility has to be necessarily promising and important in building the State as well as the Nation.

5. The petitioner has submitted that the Architects Act, 1972, vide its Chapter II had provided a provision under section 21 for the 1st respondent i.e. the Council of Architecture to prescribe the Minimum Standards for the Qualifications recognised under the Act and based on which, the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations 1983 was brought out by

notification in the Official Gazette. It is further submitted that among many Standards, the requirement of Faculties and Building Areas, primarily being considered as important and very basic factors necessarily to be in position even before beginning of imparting education, are prescribed in Regulation 8 of the 1983 Regulations.

6. The petitioner has submitted that the Constituent College of 2nd respondent, i.e. School of Architecture and Planning (SAP), the 3rd respondent therein, imparting Architectural Education and awarding recognised qualification under the provisions of Architects Act 1972, is required to be in conformity with provisions of the Act as well as the Rules and Regulations of Minimum Standards prescribed therein and therefore it is the primary duty and obligation for the 2nd & 3rd respondents to ensure standards by maintaining at least the minimum requirements of teachers, infrastructures, builtup areas, etc. as per the Regulations of 1st respondent , that are necessarily to be in position continuously based on the Intake and total strength of the Students, however, at no time not below the required level prescribed under the statue.

7. The petitioner has submitted that the School of Architecture and Planning (SAP), the 3rd respondent, the Constituent Unit of 2nd respondent, is currently holding a sanction of annual intake of 120 Students at UG level from the 1st respondent Council apart from two more programmes with 20 annual intake at PG level under its Department of Architecture, having a total strength of students about 520 at UG level for which the strength of teachers has to be at least 65 based on the Teacher - Student Ratio 1:8 as prescribed by the 1st respondent in its Regulations. The petitioner has further submitted that at the Campus of 3rd respondent SAP, the minimum required built-up spaces should be around 7,800 sq.m. for the strength about 520 UG students alone at the rate of 15 sq.m. per student as prescribed by the 1st respondent, whereas the actual ground situation available with the 3rd respondent on both these facilities and faculties is highly alarming and inadequate.

8. The petitioner has submitted that the SAP, the 3rd respondent herein, is a Constituent Institution of the 2nd respondent, as per the information written in the documents received under RTI Act 2005 from the 1st respondent .

9. The petitioner has submitted that it is assumed all the Teaching Faculties named therein the list are eligible for their respective designations and they are in the required three level designations such as Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in the Ratio of 1:2:4 as stipulated in the 1st respondent Regulations and however, simply looking at the overall effective availability of Teachers strength of 25 numbers for UG level Programme at SAP, the 3rd respondent herein, the maximum eligible annual Intake

of Students could be only with 40 as per the provisions of 1st respondent Regulations.

10. The petitioner has submitted that the campus of 3rd respondent, SAP was originally designed and built for an annual Intake of 20 Students only and later, the built-up space was marginally increased by adding one floor, few more spaces here and there and however based on the information available in the documents received from the 1st respondent under RTI Act 2005 as well as taken out from the University Web-site, the available built-up spaces approximately works out to be 4,200 sq.m. only, against the minimum requirement of 7,800 sq.m. for the current student's strength as on today and which would be increased to 9,000 sq.m. for the ultimate total strength of students based on 120 current annual Intake.

I further submit that the 3rd respondent , SAP Campus and the Buildings are also shared and occupied by other 2 PG in Architecture & one PG in Planning Programmes and the current total space of 4,200 sq.m. would actually be less by 20 to 25% for UG Programme which is now under question and therefore, the actual available space shall be around 3,000 sq.m. which would be eligible only to consider for 40 annual Intake.

11. The petitioner has submitted that this is not the first time in the case of 2nd & 3rd respondents and during 2012, the 2nd respondent has filed a Writ Petition in this Court contesting against the order of 1st respondent reducing the annual Intake from 80 to 40 and this Honourable Court while restoring the Intake of 80 based on the assurance of the 2nd respondent on maintaining and complying with the Standards, directed the 1st respondent to inspect the Institutions again and to take decision accordingly.

12. The petitioner has submitted that even after the above case, for the reasons best known to the 2nd & 3rd respondents, instead of working positively to ensure the requirement of minimum faculties and facilities as prescribed therein the 1st respondent regulations, the 2nd & 3rd respondents have chosen to capture power and got into the helm of affairs of 1st respondent and did away with not only all existing deficiencies but also got increased its sanctioned annual intake from 80 to 120 in the year 2015 without increasing and or providing any single Faculty and/or Facility at the Campus of 3rd respondent SAP and its Dean has now got herself nominated into the Council as a Member and also subsequently has then got elected to the highest body of Executive Committee of 1st respondent Council in order to take the power of the 1st respondent Council into the hands of 2nd & 3rd respondents.

13. The petitioner has submitted that such malafide intention and attitude of few vested interest groups sitting over the body of 2nd & 3rd respondents is highly dangerous and detrimental to the entire system of higher education, if they

are allowed to continue such incorrect and illegal ways and means under the banner of an Authority like 2nd respondent, which are supposed to be a standing model and example for others to know and learn from the 2nd & 3rd respondents on how the qualities and standards have to be seeded and cultivated at the crucial subject matter of human development and therefore it is necessary to take up this matter seriously to set right the status in order.

14. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner made sincere efforts in bringing out this matter of Faculty Status at Architecture Institutions in India to the 1st respondent as well as to the Secretary to the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, on 2.11.2016 by pointing out the current status and seriousness of the matter and appealed to them to intervene and take necessary steps at the earliest so as to ensure at least the minimum requirements of Faculties and Facilities at the so-called Premiere Institutions of India first before showing fingers against the so-called 2nd and 3rd level Institutions including the private ones. The petitioner has submitted that the President of 1st respondent reacted immediately with a spontaneous reply on 13.11.

2016 by E-mail addressed to the Registrar, the 1st respondent herein, as well as to the petitioner, to take up and verify the matters and conduct surprise inspections to authenticate at the ground, however, there was no action seems to be initiated till date and all of a sudden surprisingly all the Institutions, except a few as they (the persons at the helm of affairs of 1st respondent) only know, received extension of approvals without any Inspection, though the 1st respondent has called earlier for application by notice and collected huge money illegally as "Approval Charges' in the name of approval and inspection without obtaining any prior financial sanction or approval of the Central Government.

15. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made public widely through social medias, particularly among community of Architects, on these deficiencies at Premiere Institutions and sent representations by E-mails to all Council Members of 1st respondent and though many Architects expressed positively for the E-mail Communication of the President of 1st respondent , but in reality all in vain. The petitioner has submittedthat many experienced Architect Professionals are with inadequate employment in the market and if these faculty vacancies alone were filled at all Architectural Institutions of India, it would be a great opportunity for Architects fraternity by which around 5000 Architects would be benefited with Jobs.

16. The petitioner has submitted that the 1st respondent unwarrantedly and suddenly sent a Circular on 01.06.2017 to all the Heads of Architectural Institutions informing the decision of Executive Committee allowing the Institutions to appoint Faculties of Architecture on contract basis for a

period of one year and the said Circular was silent on the future course of action how those vacancies filled today by temporary appointments are going to be dealt with after a year and the fate of Architects appointed today on temporary basis after a year. The petitioner has further submitted that what is the necessity for suggesting such uncertain temporary solution is best known only to the Executive Committee of 1st respondent in which the Dean of 3rd respondent , SAP was also a Party to that decision and the said Circular might have been intentionally made, due to his repeated representations in writing and pressures made through social medias, to help mainly those so called Premiere Government Institutions like the 2nd & 3rd respondents in order to lessen their deficiencies in Faculties by filling with temporary appointments, so as to manage the issue of deficiency smoothly at the time of admission and to get benefit out of 'special admissions under various quotas' and in fact this was the complaint against 2nd respondent raised earlier before this Hon'ble Court in 2012.

17. The petitioner has submitted that apart from all these sustained and continuous efforts of the petitioner herein, once again the petitioner sent a formal reminder in writing on 25.06.2017 to the President of 1st respondent emphasizing immediate attention mainly onto the Status of Faculties at those so-called Premiere Government Institutions, more particularly with reference to 2nd & 3rd respondents and in spite of all these efforts taken by this petitioner herein, there is no positive response from the respondents till date and the petitioner has now left with no other choice except to file this Writ Petition before this Court for necessary directions only to ensure the law in force either by providing minimum required Faculties and Facilities for the sanctioned Intake or by amending the Intake immediately in tune with available Faculties and Facilities at the Institutions.

18. The petitioner has submitted that instead of these Premiere Government Institutions like IITs, NITs, SPAs, CEPTAhmadabad, JJ College of Architecture-Mumbai including the 3rd respondent Institution should have been at the level of 'Center of Excellence' being Role-Models for others to follow, but in reality, these so-called Prime Institutions are not even at the level of meeting the Minimum Standards and many of them with highly poor, holding even a damaging figure in effect, less than 40% of Minimum Standards and only by setrighting these Public Institutions in Order, strong signals would automatically trickled down to the rest of other Institutions including Private ones to be in Order.

19. The petitioner has submitted that the 2nd & 3rd respondents have been in the habit of making illegal admissions on back door methods, to less-merit students under the guise of various quotas like Founder's quota, Government quota, Management quota, etc., and he understands that even

after striking down some of the quotas, by this Court on earlier occasion, conveniently by setting up certain people, still this illegal admissions are going on continuously till this date and also the 2nd respondent intends to make such admissions in the present academic year which is per-se illegal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

20. Respondents have submitted that the above Writ Petition even though has been couched as a Public Interest Litigation by the Writ petitioner, the same has been filed by a person who runs a private institution in the field of Architecture and at the present, he is unable to conduct the Institution due to want of staff and students. The present Writ Petition has been filed, unnecessarily interfering with the functions of the respondent in prescribing and monitoring standards of architectural education in the country.

21. Respondents have further stated that the Council of Architecture, the respondent herein, has been set up under the provisions of The Architects Act, 1972. The said Act is in similar lines with The Medical Council Act, The Advocates Act, The Dental Council of India Act, solely created for the purpose of empowering the Council's functioning under the Act to regulate the education and profession in the field of respective Acts i.e. in the field of Architecture in the present instance.

22. As far as the respondent Council is concerned, as per the provisions of The Architect Act, 1972, the Council regulates the fixing of the intake of students, prescribes eligibility norms for admission to B.Arch. Course, provides the syllabus and course contents for education and its requirements, fixes the duration of the course, prescribes the Infrastructure and Staff requirements to be complied with by an architectural Institution imparting recognised architectural qualifications. The respondent has further submitted that The Architect Act, 1972 is Central Legislation relatable to Entry 66 List I, Entry 26 List III of the Constitution of India as well as under Article 19 (6) (1) of the Constitution of India.

23. Constitution of The Council of Architecture is as per the provisions of Section 3 of The Architects Act, 1972. Section 3 provides for the manner in which the Council has to be constituted, according to the provision it shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and may by that name sue or be sued. The Section 3 of The Architects Act, 1972 reads as follows:- CHAPTER - II COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE

3. (1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute,

with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, a Council to be known as the Council of Architecture, which shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property; both movable and immovable, and to contract, and may by that name sue or be sued.

(2) The Head Office of the Council shall be at Delhi or at such other place as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

(3) The Council shall consist of the following members, namely:- (a) five architects possessing recognised qualifications elected by the Indian Institute of Architects from among its members;

(b) two persons nominated by the All India Council for Technical Education established by the Resolution of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Education No. F.16-10/44-E. Ill, dated the 30th November, 1945;

(c) five persons elected from among themselves by heads of architectural institutions in India imparting full time instruction for recognised qualifications;

(d) the Chief Architects in the Ministries of the Central Government to which the Government business relating to defence and railways has been allocated and the head of the Architectural Organisation in the Central Public Works Department, ex officio;

(e) one person nominated by the Central Government;

(f) an architect from each State nominated by the Government of that State;

(g) two persons nominated by the Institution of Engineers (India) from among its members; and (h) one person nominated by the Institution of Surveyors of India from among its members.

Explanation - For the purposes of this subsection, (a) "Institution of Engineers (India)" means the Institution of Engineers (India) first registered in 1920 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and subsequently incorporated by a Royal charter in 1935.

(b) "Institution of Surveyors of India" means the Institution of Surveyors registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860."

24. Respondent has further submitted that the Council is empowered to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education for imparting recognized qualifications by colleges or institutions in India. In the present case, the Council

under Section 21 read with Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972 had prescribed Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983 which prescribe the Duration and Stages of the Course, Eligibility for admission to Course, Intake, Courses and periods of Studies, Professional Examination, Standards of proficiency and Conditions of Admission, Qualifications of Examiners, Standards of Staff, Equipment, Accommodation, Training and Other facilities for imparting Architectural Education in the Country and monitors the maintenance of same by way of periodic inspections.

25. Third respondent's Institution is one of the oldest Institutions imparting education in Architecture and is a Constituent of Anna University, the 2nd respondent.

26. The 3rd respondent, being a Unit and Constituent of 2nd respondent, Anna University, is directly being run by the funds and aid provided by the State Government and is required to impart architectural education as norms of prescribed by the respondent No.l and also admit students as per the intake sanctioned by the respondent No.1.

27. Considering the application received and the standard and quality of education provided by the 3rd respondent and based on the report provided by the Inspection Committee, the Competent Authority of Council of Architecture has permitted the 3rd respondent Institution to have additional intake of 40 students over the existing intake of 80 students thereby permitting intake of 120 students for the full time Bachelors course for the Academic year 2015-2016 vide approval letter dated 16.07.2015, subject to compliance with the norms of the Council. Further in the Approval letter it was stated therein that the Institution shall initiate all remedial acts based on inspection report and observation of the Executive Committee of the council.

28. The approval for increase of intake from 80 to 120 students for the full time Bachelor of Architecture Course was granted by this respondent much before the present Dean of the 3rd respondent was nominated to the Council of Architecture on 31.08.2015. As such this respondent states that the allegations and averments made by the Writ petitioner in the Affidavit under reply that The Dean of the 3rd respondent 's Institution being a member of the Council has facilitated or influenced in the grant of increase of intake of students to the 3rd respondent Institution is improper, untrue, incorrect and totally false.

29. The above said approval granted for the intake of 120 students for the Course of Bachelor of Architecture in the 3rd respondent's Institution was subsequently extended for the Academic year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 by approval letters dated 11.05.2016 and 20.05.2017 issued by this respondent.

30. Meanwhile, considering the vast changes which has occurred in the field of Architecture, Population of the Country, availability of land in different parts of the country, technological advancements made in Architectural Education and Profession in India as well as globally, the norms for faculty, land and building have been rationalized to meet the current needs.

31. Accordingly, respondent Council in terms of Section 21 read with Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972 made new regulations to supersede the 1983 regulation for regulating the Minimum Standard of Architectural Education.

32. The New Minimum Standard of Architectural Education Regulation 2017 is at present pending for approval before the Central Government in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. This respondent is actively pursuing the matter with the Central Government for according its approval so that the Architectural Institutions can be asked to impart Architectural Education as per the 2017 Regulations.

33. Respondent has further submitted that since the minimum standard regulation are in the transitional period and awaiting the approval by the Central Government, the Competent Authority of the answering respondent has decided to issue a communication dated 1.6.2017 to all the Heads of the Architectural Institutions to comply with the minimum qualification and experience of the faculty as per 1983 Regulation for a period of one year by appointing faculty on a contractual basis as the latest 2017 regulations are yet to be approved by the Central Government.

34. As such the allegations and averments made by the Writ petitioner in the Affidavit under reply that this respondent is according approval in violation of the minimum standard requirement and many Prestigious Premier Government Institutions i.e. I.I.Ts., N.I.Ts., S.P.As, P.E., C.E.P.Ts - Ahmadabad, J.J. College of Architecture - Mumbai along with the 3rd respondent have been permitted to run the Institutions in violation of minimum standards, is false and incorrect to the knowledge of the Writ petitioner. This statement is made by the petitioner to purely self serving his interest. The respondent has been granting approval for additional intake only after proper inspection and report obtained from the Inspection Committee and after considering the quality and standard of the Institution to which such approvals can be granted. In the present instance the 3rd respondent Institution was given approval for 120 intake based on application submitted by the Institution, report of Inspection Committee and conditions prescribed for compliance by the 3rd respondent Institution.

35. The process of inspections of architectural institution for the academic year 2018-2019 will commence soon and the answering respondent will strictly monitor the compliance with the norms and standards prescribed by the respondent Council for imparting recognized architectural qualifications and consider taking and passing appropriate orders, wherever required.

36. Respondent has submitted that this respondent while regulating the standard of Education in Architecture as imparted by various Institutions in India as well as the 3rd respondent , has been strictly monitoring the compliance with the minimum standard prescribed as per its regulations and considering the quality of education which has to be provided.

37. Respondent has submitted that inspections of Architectural Institutions for the year 2018-2019 are commencing soon and the answering respondent will take appropriate action based on the Inspection Reports, if required, against concerned Architectural Institutions which would be found to be not imparting education as per the norms and standards of the Council.

Based on the averments, we heard the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials available on record. 38.

Firstly, the contention of the Council of Architecture, New Delhi, representing the Registrar, that the petitioner is unable to run a private institution in the field of Architecture, due to lack of staff and students, is not disputed.

39.

Secondly, the school of Architecture, Anna University, is a constituent college, run by the funds and aid from the State Government. Initially, the 3rd respondent, Constituent College has been granted approval for an intake of 80 students. Thereafter, based on the inspection, report submitted by the Committee and having satisfied with the quality of education provided by the 3rd respondentConstituent College, vide approval, dated 16.07.2015, 1st respondent-Council has permitted the 3rd respondent-College to have additional intake of 40 students over and above the existing intake of 80 students for the academic year 2015-16, subject to the norms of the council.

40.

Though the petitioner has alleged irregularities alleged to have been committed by the 3rd respondent-College, the 1st respondent-Council has categorically stated that approval for increase of intake from 80 students to 120 students for full time Bachelor in Architecture course, was granted by the Council, much before the Dean of the 3rd respondent-College, was nominated to the council. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the 1st respondent-Council that

allegations that the Dean of the 3rd respondent-College has facilitated or influenced the council for grant of increase in the intake of students from 80 students to 120 students, is wholly erroneous. In the case on hand, the petitioner, who has claimed himself as a Public Interest Litigant, who runs a private architecture institution, has made baseless allegations.

41.

Approval granted for instake of 120 students, has been periodically extended for the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18, by approval letters, dated 11.05.2016 and 20.05.2017 respectively. Pending approval of the minimum standard of Architectural Education Regulation, 2017, the 1st respondentCouncil has also issued a communication, dated 01.06.2017, to all the Heads of Architectural Institutions, to comply with the minimum qualification and experience of the faculty, as per Regulation for a period of one year, by appointing faculty on a contract basis.

42.

Contention that the Council of Architecture, New Delhi, represented by its Registrar, that approval has been granted only after proper inspection by the Committee and considering the quality and standard of education, has not been disputed. At Paragraphs 15 to 17, of the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent-Council has further stated that, "(i) the process of inspections of architectural institution for the academic year 2018-2019 will commence soon and the Answering Respondent will strictly monitor the compliance with the norms and standards prescribed by the Respondent Council for imparting recognized architectural qualifications and consider taking and passing appropriate orders, wherever required.

(ii) The Council, while regulating the standard of Education in Architecture as imparted by various Institutions in India as well as the 3rd Respondent, has been strictly monitoring the compliance with the minimum standard prescribed as per its regulations and considering the quality of education which has to be provided.

(iii) Inspections of Architectural Institutions for the year 2018-2019 are commencing soon and the Answering Respondent will take appropriate action based on the Inspection Reports, if required, against concerned Architectural Institutions which would be found to be not imparting education as per the norms and standards of the Council."

43.

Going through the entire material on record, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Asr To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Plan & design) Division, Salem - 7.

5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Planning (Plan & Design) Sub division, Room No.205, Collectorate campus, Salem -1.

6. The Assistant director (Town Panchayat) District Collector Office 2nd floor, Salem Region, Salem -1.

7. The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats) District Collector Office, Salem-1.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem District.

9. The Tahsildar, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District.

10. The Executive Engineer, Veeraganur Town Panchayat, Salem District.

W.P.No.21501 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.22490 & 22491 of 2017 pp[co] srg 10/12/2019