Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is by the writ petitioner who failed in challenging the appointment of the third respondent as a Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Kozhikode.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that having regard to the nature of the amendments to Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", from time to time, it is apparently clear that the Legislature had done away with the insistence of 'social work' as a qualification, and therefore, merely because the third respondent is a social worker, she could not have been selected, having regard to the nature of Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act as it stands now. The second argument is that the files do not disclose any consideration of the comparable abilities to assess the comparative suitability of the selected candidates and hence, judicial review is consciously averted by the Government, by not making available the relevant materials. The argument is that the files should consist the materials on the basis of which