Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S.Chandurkar, V.V.Joshi, JJ.
Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3680/2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Consumer Protection Rules - Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - The court struck down Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 for violating the doctrine of separation of powers by allowing excessive executive influence in the appointment of judicial members. It also invalidated Rule 10(2) for restricting the tenure of members to four years, contrary to the Supreme Court's directive for a five-year term. The court emphasized the need for judicial dominance in selection committees and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines in recruitment processes, particularly regarding the conduct of examinations and the eligibility for re-appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged specific rules of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, particularly Rule 6(1) regarding the composition of the Selection Committee and Rule 10(2) concerning the tenure of members. The petitioners sought declarations of their eligibility for re-appointment and contested the legality of recent recruitment advertisements and notifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Rule 6(1) compromised judicial independence by allowing executive members to dominate the Selection Committee, violating the separation of powers. It also ruled that Rule 10(2) was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's established five-year term for tribunal members. The court held that the recruitment process must adhere to the Supreme Court's directives and that the recent advertisement deviated from these guidelines.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by allowing executive influence in judicial appointments. 2. Whether Rule 10(2) is valid in restricting the tenure of members to four years contrary to Supreme Court directives. 3. The legality of the recruitment advertisement and its compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the composition of the Selection Committee must ensure judicial dominance to maintain the independence of the judiciary. It reiterated that any legislative provision that undermines the established tenure for tribunal members, as directed by the Supreme Court, is invalid. The court also emphasized that administrative bodies must adhere strictly to judicial directives in recruitment processes.
Final Decision: The court struck down Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020, invalidated the notifications constituting the Selection Committee, and ruled that the recruitment process must comply with the Supreme Court's directives. The advertisement for recruitment was deemed without jurisdiction, necessitating a re-conduct of the examination as per the Supreme Court's guidelines.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2. These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to raise a challenge to Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020'). A declaration has also been sought that the petitioners who were the members at various District Commissions are eligible for re-appointment to the post of member of the District Commission under Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020.
3. Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2023 has been preferred by Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, a practising Advocate, who had earlier filed Writ Petition No.1096 of 2021 wherein challenge was raised to Rule 3(2)(d), Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 that came to be quashed by the judgment dtd. 14/9/2021 in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe Versus Union of India & Others [Public Interest Litigation No.11 of 2021 alongwith Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021]. The application for review filed by the State of Maharashtra was withdrawn on 24/3/2023 and a direction to complete the process of appointment within three months was issued. In addition to aforesaid challenge, the advertisement dtd. 23/5/2023 issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department (for short, 'the Department') of the State of Maharashtra is also under challenge. Notifications dtd. 10/4/2023 and 13/6/2023 constituting a Selection Committee for selection of President and members at the State Commission and the District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra are also under challenge. Writ Petition No. 2107 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners who are functioning as Members at District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra. Besides raising challenge to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020, the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the said Rules are challenged to the extent the tenure of the District Commission is restricted to a period of four years. The petitioners seek a declaration that they are eligible for being considered for re-appointment to the post of member in the light of the fact that they had earlier successfully completed the process of selection which included written examination and interview as per the Rules prevailing then. Writ Petition No. 2496 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners who were functioning as President/members of District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra. They also seek a declaration that they are eligible for being considered for re-appointment to the post of President/Members of the District Commission having completed the process of selection including written examination and interview as per the prevailing rules.
4. In Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2023, Civil Application (W) No. 2497 of 2023 has been filed by four applicants seeking leave to intervene in the present proceedings. The applicants have stated that they are advocates by profession practising in various Courts in the State. They have submitted their applications in response to the advertisement dtd. 23/5/2023 in the matter of appointment on the post of Chairman/members of the District Commission and State Commission. The applicants seek to support the case as sought to be made out by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2023. Relying upon the decision in St.Mary's Orthodox Church & Others Versus State Police Chief & Others [(2020) 18 SCC 329] it is urged that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs (supra) in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India could not have been violated by the Department while issuing the advertisement. The said advertisement not being in consonance with the directions issued und
AI
Appointment of President and Members of State and District Commission – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedur....
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 ....
The qualifications for appointment as members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Rules of 2020 are distinct for different categories, and candidates qualifying under Rule 3(2)(a....
The post of President of District Commission under Section 28(1) of the Act of 2019 for the aforesaid six districts is a single isolated post in each district and therefore it is not amenable to the ....
Notifications issued under non-existent rules are invalid, and subsequent selection procedures based on such notifications are also invalid.
Timely appointments to consumer commissions are essential to prevent disruption of services and protect consumer rights, as delays are arbitrary and against public interest.
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
