1. - The matter has come up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order passed by the Court on 06/10/2009 but looking to the nature of controversy and with the consent of counsel for the parties, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally.

2. The petitioner, is a lawyer by profession, was appointed as Member, District Consumer Forum, Bharatpur vide order dated 24/01/2006 for a term of five years or upto the 65 years of age whichever is earlier.

3. It appears from the record that because of some alleged complaints of which reference has been made by the petitioner as well, an in-house enquiry was conducted by the Member, State Commission, who has also been impleaded as respondent No.4, who submitted its report (Anx.3) in regard to the allegations on which this Court would not like to express any opinion at this stage. However, taking note of the report furnished a notice was served upon the petitioner by the Registrar, State Commission, Jaipur dated 15th September, 2009. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that as he was appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Form by the State Government and under Sub-section 1-A of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 appointment of a member under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted under Sub-Section 1-A of section 10 of the Act, 1986.

4. Taking note thereof, counsel for petitioner urged that the very notice served upon the petitioner by the Registrar, State Commission was without authority and competence and the action initiated needs to be set aside.

5. Counsel for petitioner has further urged that the FIRs, of which reference has been made, instituted against the petitioner, are with oblique motive and in one of the FIRs registered by the Reader of the District Consumer Forum, Final Report has been submitted by the Police Authorities after investigation and there is no material available on the basis of which any action could be taken against the petitioner.

6. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it has been averred that the State Government is the ultimate Authority which is competent. However, the State Commission, since holding administrative control, has examined the alleged misconduct but finally the matter has to be placed before the State Government for taking appropriate action permitted under law.

7. Counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the show cause notice served upon the petitioner Anx.4 is concerned, it cannot be said to be legally sustainable since after the enquiry being held by the State Commission, the matter has to be placed before the Appointing Authority i.e. the State Government to take final decision obviously after complying with the requirement as provided under law.

8. Counsel for respondents has brought to the notice of the Court the conduct of the petitioner which has been enquired upon by the Member of the State Commission but counsel submits that it is open for the State Government to take final decision based on material on record and no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner so far which may in any manner cause prejudice to him.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record.

10. Under the Act, 1986, the appointment of President and Members of the District Consumer Forum are made by the State Government under Section 10 in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee constituted under Sub-Section 1-A of Section 10 of the Act, 1986. The petitioner was appointed as Member of the District Consumer Forum by the State Government on the recommendations made by the Committee constituted under Section 10(1-A) of the Act, 1986 vide order dated 24/01/2006 and the State Commission is holding administrative control over all the D