Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
Anna Mathew & Others
Versus
N. Kannadasan Presiding Officer, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others
W.P.Nos.18731, 21495 & 21504 of 2008 and M.P.NOs.1 to 7, 1, 2, 1 to 5 of 2008
Decided on: 12-12-2008
Whether Respondent No.1 was ineligible to be appointed as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court for a period of two years from the date of assumption of office. Since there was no confirmation or further extension and, therefore, in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India ([1981] Supp. SCC 87), the first respondent ceased to be an Additional Judge with effect from 11. 2005. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 renewed his licence as an Advocate and thereafter appointed as Additional Advocate General of the State Government with effect from 11. 2006. Since there was some doubt in the Registry of the Madras High Court as to the entitlement of Respondent No.1 regarding pensionary and other benefits available to a retired Judge, a query had been made on 5th April, 2006. It appears that the Government of India by its letter dated 23. 2007 indicated that Respondent No.1 was not entitled to pension since he was only an Additional Judge of the High Court. However, it was indicated that he would be entitled to medical benefits as per the relevant rules as applicable to any retired Judge of the High Court. On the question as to whether Respondent No.1 was eligible for being appointed as Presiding Officer / Chairman of the Commission / Tribunal, the letter indicated that such aspect would depend upon the provisions contained in a particular statute. On 25. 2008, Respondent No.1 made a representation to the Registry with reference to the Central Government letter dated 23. 2007, by stating that "his name may be included in the list of retired Judges of Madras High Court, so as to enable him for being considered for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer / Chairman of Commissions / Tribunals, etc". On 30.5.2008, Respondent No.3, the State Government, wrote a letter to Respondent No.5, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, to forward a panel of eligible names of the retired High Court Judges, after the approval by the Honourable the Chief Justice for being considered for the office of the President of the Commission. Subsequently, a reminder was received on 16. 2008. In the meantime, the letter of request sent by Respondent No.1, on the basis of the endorsement made by the Honourable the Chief Justice, on 16. 2008, was placed before the Full Court of the High Court as Subject No.6 "for inclusion of N. Kannadasans name in retired Judges panel". The Full Court minutes indicate as against the said subject as "Discussed and noted". On 16. 2008, a further reminder came from the State Government and, subsequently, on 7. 2008, a similar reminder came relating to sending of the panel. On 17. 2008, the Full Court of the Judges sitting at the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court at Madras was apparently convened and the minutes of such Full Court indicate "resolved to include N. Kannadasan as one of the retired Judges of the High Court and in the records of the Registry". The Registry prepared a note for the purpose of sending the names for appointment as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It appears that the Section Officer prepared a note on 17. 2008 and the Registrar Administration endorsed the same. However, the date put by the Registrar Administration on such note is 16. 2008. The Honourable the Chief Justice in his own hand had made a note to the following effect:- "I send the panel of three retired Judges of this Honble Court 1. Justice A.R. Ramalingam 2. Justice M. Thanikachalam 3. Justice N. Kannadasan" The date put under the signature is 16. 2008. [It may be that wrong dates have been inadvertently put by the Registrar Administration as well as the Honourable the Chief Justice and the correct dates should be treated as "17. 2008 and 17. 2008" respectively instead of "16. 2008 and 16. 2008". At any rate, Ms. Vaigai, the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that there must have been an inadvertent mistake while appending the date below the signature]. The recommendation made by the Honourable the Chief Justice was sent on 17. 2008 to the State Government, which in its turn selected Respondent No.1 for appointment as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 27. 2008, was issued.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent No.1 was ineligible to be appointed as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Issues: 1. Whether Respondent No.1 was ineligible to be appointed as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission? 2. Whether the requirement of consultation with the Honourable the Chief Justice had been fulfilled? 3. Whether the appointment of Respondent No.1 can be declared illegal and invalid on the ground that such appointment was against public interest? 4. Whether the resolution of the Full Court resolving that Respondent No.1 may be considered as a retired Judge is legal and valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An additional Judge who is not confirmed and whose term is not extended, cannot be considered as a "person who has been a Judge of the High Court" for the purpose of Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The consultation process was vitiated mainly on account of the fact that the Consultee, namely, the Honourable the Chief Justice has recommended the name of Respondent No.1 without at all considering the background as available in the High Court records regarding the circumstances under which there was no extension of the term of Respondent No.1. 3. The appointment of Respondent No.1 as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is illegal and invalid. 4. The resolution of the Full Court resolving that Respondent No.1 may be considered as a retired Judge is legal and valid.
Final Decision: Writ Petitions Nos.18731 & 21504 of 2008 were allowed and G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 27. 2008 was quashed. Writ Petition No.21495 of 2008 was dismissed as being misconceived and irrelevant.
Common Judgment: (P.K. Misra, J.)
1. W.P.No.18731 of 2008 has been filed by several Advocates for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto questioning the legality and validity of the appointment of Respondent No.1 as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Initially in such writ petition, the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was impleaded as Respondent No.2, but, at the time when the matter was taken up for admission, counsel for the petitioners deleted the Honourable the Chief Justice from the array of the respondents.
2. W.P.No.21495 of 2008 has been filed by some other Advocates for issuing a writ of Declaration that the decision taken by the Full Court of the Madras High Court on 17. 2008 is unconstitutional and non-est.
3. W.P.No.21504 of 2008 has been filed by some other practicing Advocates for issuing a writ of Declaration that G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 27. 2008, appointing Respondent No.1 as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as illegal and unconstitutional.
4. All these writ petitions have been heard together and shall be disposed by the present common judgment. The primary question is relating to validity of appointment of Respondent No.1 as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”).
5. Bereft of unnecessary and sordid details, the main allegations made in W.P.No.18731 of 2008, seeking for the issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto are to the effect that Respondent No.1 was appointed as Additional Judge for a period of two years, there was no confirmation or further extension and, therefore, in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India ([1981] Supp. SCC 87), the first respondents continuance as a Judge was considered to be against public interest on the tests of intellectual and moral requirement. Since Respondent No.1 had not challenged his non-appointment as Judge after 11. 2005, the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of the Supreme Court had become final. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners have raised several contentions regarding the legality and validity of the appointment of Respondent No.1 as President of the Commission by posing specifically the following questions :
i) Whether the earlier recommendations of the Constitutional functionaries under Article 217, viz. the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of the Supreme Court and of the Central Government that a person should not be considered as a Judge on grounds of unsuitability and as being public interest, are not vital and decisive considerations that should weigh with the Chief Justice of the High Court in considering the same person for appointment to any judicial office under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or any other similar offices in other Tribunals & Commissions?
ii) Since an independent and fair judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, can a person found wanting in the necessary intellectual and moral requirements to be a Judge, be considered again for any other judicial office?
iii) If the Government considers and appoints such a person to any judicial office, would it not amount to interfering with the independence of the judiciary contrary to Art.50 of the Constitution of India?
iv) Whether the expression "is or has been a Judge of the High Court" in Sec.16 would include even a Judge, who had demitted office on account of impeachment or unsuitability to hold a judicial office?
v) Whether an Additional Judge can be considered as a retired Judge to be eligible for appointment to judicial offices in various Tribunals and Commissions?
In such writ petition, various averments have been made touching upon the alleged lack of integrity and honesty on the part of Respondent No.1, but we do not think it is necessary to recount those allegations in de
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
