2009 Supreme(Mad) 5390
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. H.L. GOKHALE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
P. Vijayasankar & Others
Versus
The Secretary, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Puducherry & Others
Writ Petition Nos.23404 of 2009, 24770 & 25178 of 2009
Decided on : 09-12-2009
For the Petitioners:Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel, for C. Anandaramani, M. Gnanasekar, Advocates, N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel, for U. Karunakaran,
Advocate. For the Respondents:N. Mala, Govt. Advocate (Pondy).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of giving precedence to District Judges in appointments to the post of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, as specified in the Consumer Protection Act and emphasized by the directive issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Appointment to the post of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum - Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which specifies the qualifications for the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum. It highlighted the directive issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 24-B of the Act, giving precedence to District Judges in appointments to the post of President of the District Forum, and the court's approval of this directive in a previous judgment. The court emphasized that if serving or retired District Judges are not available, the appointment can be made from amongst advocates, in line with the purpose of the Act and the interest of better administration of the District Fora.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerned the appointment to the post of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum for the Union Territory of Puducherry, which was lying vacant for some time. The petitioners sought directions for the appointment, each proposing different methods for filling the vacancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed all three writ petitions, stating that the cancellation of the earlier selection process due to the absence of District Judges was appropriate and not illegal. It emphasized that the directive giving precedence to District Judges in appointments is in line with the purpose of the Act and the interest of better administration of the District Fora.
Issues: The main issue was the appointment to the post of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum and the cancellation of the earlier selection process due to the absence of District Judges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, the directive issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and a previous judgment of the court approving the directive. It emphasized the importance of giving precedence to District Judges in appointments to the post of President of the District Forum.
Final Decision: All three writ petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The court also closed the respective miscellaneous petitions in the writ petitions.
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
Heard Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. C. Anandaramani for the petitioner in W.P. No.23404 of 2009; Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.2470 of 2009; and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. U. Karunakaran for the petitioner in W.P. No.25178 of 2009. Ms. N. Mala, learned Government Advocate (Pondy) appears on behalf of both the respondents in W.P. Nos.23404 and 25178 of 2009 and also for respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. No.24770 of 209.
2. All these three writ petitions are concerning the appointment to the post of the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum for the Union Territory of Puducherry. All the petitioners seek an early appointment to the said post since it is lying vacant for quite some time now. W.P. No.23404 of 2009 seeks a direction to fill up that post within a stipulated time frame; W.P. No.24770 of 2009 seeks a direction that the said post be filled up by bringing an officer from the District Judges of Puducherry on deputation basis; and W.P. No.25178 of 2009 seeks a direction that a person be appointed from amongst those who participated in the selection process as per the interviews held on 18. 2009.
.3. As far as the appointment to the post of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum is concerned, Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down
.that each District Forum shall consist of a person who is, or has been a District Judge, who shall be its President. Thus, as the Section is worded, a person who is or has been a District Judge is mentioned first in Section 10(1)(a) of the Act and thereafter, the clause includes a person who is qualified to be a District Judge. Sub-section (1A) of this Section lays down that every appointment under sub-section (1) of the Act is to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of three persons mentioned in that section, i.e., the President of the State Commission as its Chairman; and the Secretary of the Law Department of the State as well as the Secretary in-charge of the Department dealing with consumer affairs in the State as its Members. The proviso to Section 10(1A) is also relevant, in the sense that it lays down that when the President of a State Commission is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.
4. In the instant case, it appears that an advertisement calling for applications for appointment to the said post was issued on 25. 2009, in pursuance to which some advocates did apply. However, no judicial officer had applied therefore and a panel of judicial officers was also not obtained from the High Court and therefore, the Government of Puducherry passed an order on 111. 2009 cancelling the earlier selection process.
5. An affidavit affirmed by one Smti. P. Priytarshny, Joint Secretary to Government of Puducherry and Director of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 211. 2009 has been filed, wherein it is stated that in pursuance to the order passed by the Government of Puducherry cancelling the earlier selection process, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court was addressed for furnishing the panel of retired District Judges and on receipt of the panel, expeditious action will be taken for filling up the vacancy. Smti. Priytarshny has affirmed another affidavit on 12. 2009, wherein it is stated that the Registry of this High Court has furnished a list of retired District Judges and the list has already been forwarded to the Selection Committee for conduct of the process of selection and to make the selection at the earliest. It is further stated in this affidavit that this whole exercise may be completed within a period of three months.
6. Mr. N.R.