Shaji P. Chaly, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent not to terminate the petitioner from the post of Member, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, appointed as per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 11.12.2013. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [for short, CDRF], Kottayam from 18.12.2013 against the vacancy of one Bindu M. Thomas, whose tenure expired on 07.02.2013. The tenure of appointment of the petitioner is for a period of five years from the date he assumes charge. Prior to the present appointment, he served as a member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kottayam for a period from 22.09.2008 to 20.09.2013. Prior to that, petitioner was appointed as a member of CDRF, Ernakulam for the period from 2002 to 2007. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that, he is likely to be terminated by stating that he is holding the office for a third term. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the reasons stated by the respondent are not maintainable, since as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, every member of a District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. The proviso to the sub-section states that, “a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.” However, without adverting properly to the attendant provisions of law, petitioner is about to be terminated. In order to substantiate the apprehension, petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 paper publications in that regard.

3. Respondent has filed a statement, primarily contending that there is no notice issued for removing the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition is premature. The nature of appointment of the petitioner to various fora stands admitted. However, it is contended that, as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it stood originally, reads that “every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment.” Subsequently, Section 10(2) was amended and as per the proviso thereto, a member shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that, he fulfills the qualification and other conditions for appointment mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such reappointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

4. Thus, after the amendment, a person who is already appointed as a Member of the District Forum can be reappointed for another term of five years, if such reappointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In the present case, petitioner was originally appointed as Member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam for the period from 20.05.2002 to 19.05.2007. In view of the amended provision of Section 10(2), he was eligible for reappointment for another period of five years, if he was recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner was again re-appointed as recommended by the Selection Committee for another period of five years as Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam from 22.09.2008 to 20.09.2013, as can be seen from Ext.P2. According to the respondent, as the provisions of law stands now, petitioner cannot be again re-appointed for a third term of five years, and therefore, the appointment presently made with effect from 11.12.2013 as per Ext.P1 is ab-initio void and hence bad. Since this was noticed by the Consumer Affairs Department, the legality of appointment of the petitioner was referred to the Law Secretary. The Law Secretary is also of the opinion that, the ap