SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 798

2003(6) Supreme 532
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Anand Prakash Solanki -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13683/2001)
Decided on 25-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the State of Rajasthan : Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharti Upadhyaya and V.N. Raghupathy, Javed Mahmud Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Pallav Shishodia, T. Mahipal, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
State Government has power to transfer the President or member of District Forum but power is to be exercised on the recommendation of Committee contemplated by Section 10(1A) of Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 10(1A)-State s power to transfer the President or any member of District Forum-President or members of one District Forum can be appointed by transfer to another District Forum subject to the requirement of sub-section (1A) of Section 10 being satisfied-Power is to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy purpose of constituting the District Forum.

       Held : There is nothing wrong in the President or members of one District Forum being appointed by transfer to another District Forum, subject to the requirement of sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 being satisfied. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the State Government but only on the recommendation of the committee consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries, i.e. the committee composed as per sub-Section (1A) of Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or routine feature. The power is there but is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District Forum. The broader concept of transfer is a change of the place of employment within an organization. Transfer is an incidence of public service and the power to transfer is available to be exercised by the employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such power can be spelt out. The power, like all other administrative powers, has to be exercised bona fide. (Para 8)

       Further held : The scheme of the Act does not prohibit or exclude the exercise of power to transfer the President or members from one District Forum to another District Forum within the State. Power to transfer vests in the State Government as employer and is available to be exercised on the recommendation of committee contemplated by sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 of the Act. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court cannot be countenanced. (Para 11)

       

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The questions arising for decision in this appeal are: Whether a President or a Member of the District Forum, constituted under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter the Act , for short) can be transferred and, if so, which is the competent authority to transfer them? These questions are of significance inasmuch as the answers are likely to have far reaching implications on the working of District Fora under the Act.

2. Shri Anand Prakash Solanki, the respondent herein, was an officer belonging to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services. In the year 1996, he was working as a Special Judge in the cadre of Addl. District & Sessions Judges in the State of Rajasthan. He was appointed as President, District Consumer Protection Forum,-Pali vide order dated 9.2.1996. While he was discharging the function as President of the Forum, sometime in the month of November, 1999 he was informed telephonically by the State Government that he was being transferred and posted as President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Jalore and in his place another person was appointed/posted as the President of the Forum at Pali. This telephonic communication was followed by a written communication dated 15.11.1999 appointing him as President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Banswara in supersession of the earlier orders.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of his transfer. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that the concept of transfer is unknown for the President and members of District Fora in the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, a person appointed as President of any District Forum cannot be transferred by the State Government. The order of transfer was directed to be quashed. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal by special leave. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent has retired and, having lost interest in contesting the matter, he has chosen not to make appearance. We requested Mr. Pallav Sishodia, Advocate, to assist the Court as an amicus curiae, which he agreed to do.

4. We have heard Shri Ranji Thomas, the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan and Shri Pallav Sishodia, the learned amicus.

Leave granted.

5. A complete hierarchy of Commissions and Fora has been constituted from the national level to the district level by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is a National Commission at the national level constituted under Section 20 of the Act and State Commissions constituted for the States under Section 16 of the Act. District Fora are constituted under Section 10 of the Act. These are the three-tier agencies established for the purposes of the Act as contemplated by Section 9. Each State Commission consists of a person, designated as President, who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Then there are the members. Section 17 confers on the State Commission appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over the District Fora in quasi-judicial matters. Section 24B inserted by Act No.50 of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.1993 provides as under:-

"24B. Administrative control.-(1) The National Commission shall have administrative control over all the State Commissions in the following matters, namely:-

(i) calling for periodical return regarding the institution, disposal, pendency of cases;

(ii) issuance of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing of matters, prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the opposite parties, furnishing of English translation of judgments written in any language, speedy grant of copies of documents;

(iii) generally overseeing the functioning of the State Commission or the District Fora to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act ar































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top