2021 Supreme(Bom) 1668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sunil B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor, JJ.
Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India and others – Respondents
P. I. L. No. 11 of 2021 with W. P. No. 1096 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2021

The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe a written test for selection of President or Members of the District Forum or State Commission, and prescribed a minimum experience of 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, which was excessive and unreasonable.

Headnote:

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 (Rules of 2020) framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act of 2019) for being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, one a Public Interest Litigation and the other a Writ Petition, challenged the validity of the Rules of 2020, which prescribed a minimum experience of 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission under the Act of 2019. The petitioners contended that the Rules were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they were not in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U. P. and others vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association, (2017) 1 SCC 444 (UPCPBA).

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons: * The Rules did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, which resulted in wide variation in standards with great deal of subjectivity, and bureaucratic and political interference creeping in. * The Rules did not prescribe a written test for selection of President or Members of the District Forum or State Commission, which was contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPCPBA. * The Rules prescribed a minimum experience of 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, which was excessive and unreasonable.

Issues: 1. Whether the Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Rules of 2020 were in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPCPBA?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles of law in reaching its decision: * The need for uniformity in the appointment, tenure and service conditions for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members appointed in Tribunals. * The importance of independence of judiciary and the need to have a criteria akin to the responsibility, for appointment. * The necessity of the legislatures delegating its powers in favour of the executive is a part of legislative function. Such delegation of power, however, cannot be wide, uncanalised or unguided. * The fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, clearly includes a right to have the person’s rights, adjudicated by a forum which exercises judicial power in an impartial and independent manner, consistent with the recognized principles of adjudication.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 and partly allowed the Writ Petition No. 1096/2021. It quashed and set aside Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020, and directed the Union of India to provide for appropriately made Rules as substitutes for the quashed Rules within four weeks from the date of the judgment and order. The Court also quashed and set aside the vacancy notice dated 2nd February, 2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 for inviting applications for the post of Members of the State Commission and President and Members of the District Commission, and cancelled the process of selection of members of the State Commission and President and the Members of the District Commission, initiated in pursuance to the vacancy notice dated 2nd February, 2021.