JUDGMENT :

C.K. Thakker, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioners as pro bono publico for a writ of quo-warranto and/or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Notifications Annexures P1 and P2 dated March 13, 2000, by which an appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup-respondent No.3 has been made as President of the State Consumer Disputes and Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'). A direction is also sought against the State of Himachal Pradesh-respondent No.1 herein to make fresh appointment to the said office after following procedure laid down by the Supreme Court.

2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is a permanent resident of Namol, Post Office Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, and is a practicing advocate at Solan and is interested in proper functioning of the State Commission. Petitioner No.2 is resident of Shimla. He has retired as a Research Officer from the Department of Economics and Statistics and he is also interested in lawful administration of the State Commission. Both the petitioners are citizens of India. According to them, the appointment of respondent No.3 as President of the State Commission, was not in accordance with law and contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in several cases. They are, therefore, constrained to approach this Court by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

3. It was stated in the petition that before the appointment of respondent No.3, Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag (Retired) was working as President of the State Commission. After the term of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nag was over, vide a Notification dated March 13, 2000,(Annexure P-1), the State Government decided to take the services of respondent No.3 as the President of the State Commission. It was also stated in the said Notification that respondent No.3 shall hold the post of President of the State Commission additionally in public interest with immediate effect till he attains the age of superannuation in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By another Notification of even ' date (Annexure P-2). the State Government appointed respondent No.3 as President of the State Commission in consultation with Hon'ble the Chief ' Justice of this Court "with effect from the date he assumes the charge as such after his retirement as Judge of H.P. High Court on 20.4.2000" on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notification.

4. The petitioners have stated that the question regarding appointment of President of the State Commission came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others, (1996) 3 SCC 145, Certain principles were formulated and guidelines were issued. An appointment of President of State Commission, therefore, has to be made as per the law laid down in Ashish Handa. In the instant case, however, appointment of respondent No.3 as President of the State Commission is null and void as it is inconsistent with the directions issued in Ashish Handa. It was also stated that respondent No.1 has acted mala fide in making appointment of respondent No.3 as President of the State Commission. Further, two Notifications simultaneously could not have been issued on March 13, 2000, as has been done and on that ground also, they are unlawful and deserve to be quashed.

5. On September 12, 2000, notice was issued by this Court. On January 2, 2001, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for intervener in CMP No. 1724 of 200, the petition was admitted, Considering the question raised in the petition, final hearing was also fixed. Reply affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 - State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 - High Court of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.3 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup, (Retd.), President of