Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly
S. Chandramohan Nair .......Appellant
Versus
George Joseph and others.......Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO._________OF 2010
Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.33694 of 2009
Decided on : October 5, 2010.
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Locus standi – Respondent No.1 nothing to do with appointment of members of State Commission – Not showing how the appointment of appellant would adversely affect members of the Samiti – Respondent no. 1 a meddlesome interloper/busy body – Division Bench gravely erred in entertaining the writ petition and converting it into a writ of quo warranto. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant - S. Chandramohan Nair, Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan, Shri K.V. Thomas and one more person were interviewed on 2.3.2006 for appointment as members of the State Commission.
State Government issued notification appointing Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan and Shri K.V. Thomas as members of the State Commission.
The appellant challenged the appointment of Shri K.V. Thomas in Writ Petition. He pleaded that Shri K.V. Thomas could not have been appointed as member of the State Commission because his name had not been recommended by the Selection Committee. The learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of Shri K.V. Thomas by observing that even though name of the appellant herein was recommended by the Chairman and two members, the State Government ignored the same without assigning any tangible reason and appointed Shri K.V. Thomas, whose name was recommended only by two members.
Writ Appeal filed by Shri K.V. Thomas was dismissed.
During the pendency of the writ appeal filed by Shri K.V. Thomas, the State Government accepted the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the appellant as member of the State Commission and issued notification dated 25.6.2007.
Respondent No.1, who had nothing to do with selection and appointment of the members of the State Commission filed Writ Petition by describing himself as General Secretary of the Kerala Vayapari Vavyasai Ekopana Samati and prayed for quashing the appointment of the appellant on the ground that his name had not been recommended by the Selection Committee.
The Division Bench treated the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 as a writ of quo warranto, referred to the observations made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.968 of 2007 and held that the appellant could not have been appointed as member of the State Commission because his name had not been recommended by the Selection Committee.
Finding of the Court:
Name of the appellant had been recommended by entire body of the Selection Committee i.e., the Chairman and the Members.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and quashed the appointment of the appellant as member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the State Commission').
3. Appellant - S. Chandramohan Nair, Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan, Shri K.V. Thomas and one more person were interviewed on 2.3.2006 by the Selection Committee consisting of Justice T.M. Hassan Pillai, President of the State Commission, Shri Sainudeen, Law Secretary, Government of Kerala for appointment as members of the State Commission. The Law Secretary and the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Secretary recommended the names of Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan and Shri K.V. Thomas, but the Chairman did not agree with them. He recommended that name of the appellant be included and that of Shri K.V. Thomas be excluded from the panel. This is clearly evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee, the relevant portions of which are extracted below: "Minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 2nd March 2006 at 3.00 P.M. in the chamber of Justice T.M. Hassan Pillai, President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Present:
1. Justice Shri T.M. Hassan Pillai, President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Chairman)
2. Shri. S. Sainudeen, Law Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (Member)
3. Smt. Sheela Thomas, Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (Member) xxx xxx xxx xxx V. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Secretary-Law and Secretary-Consumer Affairs suggested the following names for inclusion in the panel for selection of member to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
1. Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan
2. Shri. K.V. Thomas As per section 16(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 apart from age and educational qualification, persons to be appointed as members of the State Commission be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. The members concluded that Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan and Shri K.V. Thomas performed satisfactorily in the interview and from their C.V. also it is seen that they have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of member, State Commission. Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan has experience in the field of law and K.V. Thomas has long experience in administration. Hence they are recommended from among the four persons interviewed for selection to the post of member, State Commission. The Chairman of the Committee, President, State C.D.R.C. dissented to this recommendation and recommended inclusion of Shri S. Chandramohan Nair and Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan in the panel and exclusion of Shri K.V. Thomas from the panel for the following reasons."
4. The final minutes containing the recommendation which were signed by the Chairman and both the members read as under:
"I recommend the following persons to be appointed as the members of the State Commission. 1. Shri. S. Chandramohan Nair 2. Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan 1. Justice Shri. T.M .Hassan Pillai, President Sd/- 2. Shri. S. Sainudeen, Law Secretary Sd/- 3. Smt. Sheela Thomas, Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Sd/-
5. Later, the Chairman of the Selection Committee incorporated the following in the minutes of the meeting: "Really what transpired at the Selection Committee Meeting held on 2nd March 2006 was that there was no difference of opinion among the President and the Members of the Selection Committee for including the name of Sri. Chandramohan Nair. The only difference of opinion was regarding the inclusion of name of Sri
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
