K.T. Thomas, J.—This appeal by the State of Kerala calls for interpretation of Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act. The sub-section reads thus : —

“Every member of the “District Forum” shall hold office for a term of five years or upto the age of 65 years whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for re-appointment”, (proviso is omitted.)

2. Learned Single Judge before whom this question came up first has held that the term of five years mentioned in the sub-section is restricted to membership in one District Forum and if the same person is appointed in another District Forum he would become entitled to hold office for another term of five years on the strength of such subsequent appointment. As the said interpretation is not acceptable to the State of Kerala, this appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

3. Facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Respondent holds office as President of the Kottayam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum). He was appointed as Member of the District Forum of some other Districts on 2.2.90 and he assumed charge as such on 5.3.90. While so he was appointed as President of the District Forum of Kottayam on 3.10.91 and he assumed office of the same on 25.10.91. Government of Kerala have made certain entries in Ext. P7 which is the register containing “personal particulars of the President and Members of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum”. In column No. 7 relating to “date of retirement in Ext. P7, the date 4.3.95 is shown as the date of retirement of the respondent. He questioned it. A representation was made by the respondent to the Government for correction of the said date as 24.10.96. But Government declined to do so and hence he filed the Original Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to effect such correction in Ext. P7.

3. Main contention of the respondent is that the term of five years should be reckoned in his case from 25.10.91, when he assumed office as President of the Kottayam District Forum. According to him, the date of his initial appointment as member of the District Forum in other District is of no bearing for the purpose of his retirement. Learned Single Judge allowed the O.P. and declared that respondent has the right to continue as President of the Kottayam District Forum till 24.10.96. Direction was issued to the Government to carry out necessary corrections in Ext. P7.

4. In this appeal, the State contended that appointment of respondent as President of the Kottayam District Forum is only a continuation of his initial appointment as member of the District Forum pertaining to other Districts since a re-appointment is specifically banned under Section 10(2) of the Act and hence respondent should have bowed out of office on 4.3.95. The view adopted by the learned Single Judge that respondent’s appointment as President of Kottayam District Forum was in supersession of the previous appointment has been assailed by the State as contrary to law.

5. We heard learned Government Pleader and Senior Advocate Mr. S. Venkitasubramanya Iyer who was instructed for the respondent. Learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis on the definite article ‘the’ which precedes the words “District Forum” in Section 10(2) and strongly supported the view adopted by the learned Single Judge oh the premise that what is envisaged in the sub-section is regarding appointment as a member of a particular District Forum whether the same person was earlier a member of a particular District Forum whether the same person was earlier a Member in any other “District Forum”. Learned Government Pleader contended that the very intention of Parliament would be defeated if a person is allowed to hold office as Member beyond the period of five years by shifting him as Member or President to a different District Forum.

6.