The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the tenure and reappointment eligibility for the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

R.M. Lodha, J.—At the outset, the learned Counsel for petitioner orally prayed for amendment of the writ petition. However, we did not find any justifiable ground to permit the petitioner to amend the writ petition now. The writ petition was filed on 29.10.2001 and if petitioner thought that the writ petition deserved to be amended, an application to that regard ought to have been made earlier. Now when the matter has been posted for motion hearing we do not find any justifiable ground to accede to the oral prayer seeking amendment to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition prays for quashing of the notification/advertisement dated 29th October, 2001 (Exhibit “C”) and in the alternative to consider the petitioner and other Presidents of the District Forums for reappointment as Presidents of the District Forums.

3. The petitioner was appointed as President of Ratnagiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 27.1.1997. The petitioner is said to have assumed charge on 15.2.1997. By public notice dated 29.10.2001 the applications from the eligible candidates for filling the posts of Presidents and Members of the District Forums in the State have been invited. In the Schedule-II appended to the said Notification it is mentioned that the vacancy to the Ratnagiri District Forum shall occur in the month of February, 2002. We do not find any legal infirmity in the issuance of the said notice dated 29.10.2001.

4. Under Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the tenure of the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) is prescribed. It provides that every Member of the District Forum shall hold the office for a term of 5 years or upto the age of 65 years whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment. The present petitioner having been appointed as President of Ratnagiri District Forum can hold the office only for a term of 5 years and is not eligible for reappointment.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon S.P. Sampathkumar v. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC 124. He particularly referred to para 22 of the said report. Para 22 of the said report reads thus:

“22. Section 8 of the Act prescribes the term of office and provides that the term for Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Members shall be of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 65 in the case of Chairman or Vice-Chairman and 62 in the case of Member, whichever is earlier. The retiring age of 62 or 65 for the different categories is in accord with the pattern and fits into the scheme in comparable situations. We would, however, like to indicate that appointment for a term of five years may occasionally operate as a disincentive for well-qualified people to accept the offer to join the Tribunal. There may be competent people belonging to younger age groups who would have more than five years to reach the prevailing age of retirement. The fact that such people would be required to go out on completing the five years period but long before the superannuation age is reached is bound to operate as a deterrent. Those who come to be Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Members resign appointments, if any, held by them before joining the Tribunal and, as such, there would be no scope for their return to the place or places from where they come. A five years period is not a long one. Ordinarily some time would be taken for most of the members to get used to the service jurisprudence and when the period is only five years, many would have to go out by the time they are fully acquainted with the law and have good grip over the job. To require retirement at the end of five years is thus neither convenient to the person selected for the job nor expedient to the scheme. At the hearing, learned Attorney General referred to the case of a member of the Public Service Commission who is appointed for a term and even suffers the disqualification in the matter of fur