After the builders, noose is tightening around four architects who designed the illegal structures at Maradu.
The State government has drawn up complaints against four architects who designed the apartments, H2O Holy Faith, Golden Kayaloram, Alfa Serene and Jain Coral Cove, which the Supreme Court has ordered to be pulled down for violating the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) guidelines. Complaints will be preferred against the architects with the Council of Architecture, a statutory body formed under the Architects Act 1972.
The State would seek action against the erring architects, including the suspension of their licences and membership from the council, as they were responsible for designing the four illegal structures.
The government would argue that the architects designed the buildings though they knew that the constructions were in violation of the CRZ norms. The architects were supposed to design the buildings by conforming with the existing rules. The Supreme Court orders in relation to the illegal structures would also be attached along with the complaints, said a senior government official.
Mention in affidavit
Chief Secretary Tom Jose, in an affidavit submitted before the Supreme Court, had stated that the government proposed to “recommend to the Council of Architecture to take action against the architects who designed these buildings in violation of the extant CRZ Rules.”
The Chief Town Planner (CTP) of the Kerala government will file the complaints against the architects in a format prescribed by the Council.
The Chief Town Planner of the Vigilance wing of the Local Self Government Department had recently completed the legal formalities for filing the complaint, sources said.
However, the CTP is understood to have written to the government asking for an authorisation letter for forwarding the complaint as the office of the CTP was not involved in the matters related to the Maradu case, sources said.
Probe and action
Regarding the disciplinary action against the architects, the Act states that if the “Council is of opinion that if any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct, which, if proved, will render him unfit to practise as an architect, the Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules.”
Section 30 (2) of Architects Act, 1972 empowers the council to “reprimand the said architect or suspend him from practice or remove his name from the register or pass such other order as it thinks fit,” if he is found guilty of the misconduct.
