As per case facts, Petitioner Shabbir A. Tambawala purchased flats in 'Tivoli'. The developer did not construct a common club house as initially promised in the layout plan. A different ... plan, allegedly forged and stamped by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (architects), removed the club house and added buildings, without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner filed a complaint of professional misconduct against the architects with the Council of Architecture. After initial dismissals and a remand from the High Court, the Disciplinary Committee found a prima facie case, but the Full Council ultimately dismissed the complaint, considering the architect's actions an inadvertent mistake. The petitioner then appealed this decision. The question arose whether the Council of Architecture correctly dismissed the complaint, asserting no professional misconduct by the architects despite discrepancies in the plans and the disciplinary committee's initial finding, and whether this decision withstands judicial review given the court's limited jurisdiction in such matters. Finally, the High Court concluded that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the Council of Architecture's decision. It recognized the Council as an expert body and upheld its finding that no professional misconduct occurred, attributing the architect's action to an inadvertent mistake for which an apology was deemed sufficient. The Court emphasized its limited powers of judicial review, stating it cannot re-evaluate evidence or act as an appellate authority unless there are clear procedural irregularities, jurisdictional flaws, or shockingly irrational decisions.