Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, L. VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ.
V. Sundararaj – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) Nos. 17210 & 18015 of 2022 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 22467 & 19441 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2023
Consumer Protection Rules - Recruitment Notifications - Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) - The court quashed the impugned notifications based on the Rules declared ultra vires by the Bombay High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court held that the notifications issued under the non-existent rules were invalid, and the subsequent selection procedure would also suffer from the same vice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenged notifications for appointment as Members in the Consumer Redressal Commissions in Tamil Nadu, based on Rules declared ultra vires by the Bombay High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The main contention was the invalidity of notifications issued under non-existent rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notifications were based on rules declared unconstitutional, and the subsequent selection procedure was also invalid. The State's delay in issuing the notifications despite the court's monitoring was noted.
Issues: Effect of the judgment declaring Rules unconstitutional, and the impact of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No.2 of 2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that notifications issued under non-existent rules were invalid, and the subsequent selection procedure would also suffer from the same vice. The court emphasized that the impugned notifications were bad and quashed them.
Final Decision: Both the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the impugned notifications were quashed. The State Government was directed to make appointments afresh in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in WP.(MD)No.17210 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notification No.2/2022 dated 17.07.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to either to obtain leave or permission from the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India before issuing any such notification in the recruitment for the posts of Members and Presidents in the State and District Consumer Forums in the future.
In WP.(MD)No.18015 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notification No.1/2022 dated 17.07.2022 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents either to obtain leave or permission from the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India before issuing any such notification in the recruitment for the posts of Members (Non-Judicial) in the Tamil Nadu State Consumer dispute redressal Commission.)
Common Order:
1. The challenge in W.P.(MD)No.17210 of 2022 is to the notification dated 17.07.2022, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member in the District Consumer Redressal Commission in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. The other writ petition viz., W.P.(MD)No.18015 of 2022 has been filed challenging a similar notification dated 17.07.2022, issued by the very same Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member (Nonjudicial / earmarked for women candidate) in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the impugned notifications issued on 17.07.2022 are based on the Rules framed by the Central Government in the year 2020 are bad in law, in view of the fact that some of the Rules particularly Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) have been declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 14.09.2021 itself and as such the notifications issued based on the non-existent rule is bad in law.
4. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that the said judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered on 14.09.2021 in W.P.No.1096 of 2021 has been confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 03.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Central Rules having been struck down by a High Court cease to exist in the statute book. The fact that the challenge to the striking down of the Rules has also failed is also pressed into service by the petitioner to buttress his contention that the entire procedure relating to recruitment of non-judicial members in the consumer Fora all over the State is vitiated.
5. The State would resist the contention on the ground that the Rules of the year 2020 are very comprehensive and they have been followed in letter and spirit. The State also seeks to rely upon various orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.(Civil)No.2 of 2021. Heavy reliance is sought to be placed by the State on the order dated 22.10.2021 made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
6. We have heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17210 of 2022, Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.18015 of 2022, Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Sarangam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 17210 of 2022 and respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(MD).No.18015 of 2022, Mr.V.Malaiyendran, learned Central Govern
AI
Notifications issued under non-existent rules are invalid, and subsequent selection procedures based on such notifications are also invalid.
Appointment of President and Members of State and District Commission – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedur....
The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial independence in the appointment of tribunal members, asserting that executive influence must be minimized to uphold the separation of powers and the ....
The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe ....
Timely appointments to consumer commissions are essential to prevent disruption of services and protect consumer rights, as delays are arbitrary and against public interest.
Administrative authorities cannot implement or rely upon draft, unnotified rule amendments to alter eligibility criteria or recruitment sources until such rules are formally gazetted and gain statuto....
The court affirmed that compliance with Supreme Court directives is mandatory and that superannuation orders must align with those established rules, highlighting judicial obligations under Article 1....
The High Court emphasized the obligation to comply with the Supreme Court's directives regarding the tenure of consumer commission members, prohibiting reinterpretation by subordinate authorities.
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
