Members and Presidents of State Consumer Commissions are entitled to continue their tenure uninterruptedly as an interim measure until new rules are notified and fresh recruitments are made, preventing a vacuum in judicial administration.

1. The petitioner prays for leave to correct the cause title in the name of the petitioner. Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the cause title in course of the day.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the notice dated 24th June, 2026 wherein the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal requested the petitioner to hand over the charge to the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as she is going to complete her tenure on 31st July, 2026 as per Rules.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limae & ors. reported in (2025) 9 SCC 634 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the President and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission who have been appointed and served prior to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they shall be allowed to complete their tenure for the entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the person who were selected to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission, without having undergone a written examination followed by a viva voce if followed in case selection process had been completed prior to the decision of this Court in Limaye-I (supra) such person shall be entitled to complete their tenure in entirety. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process under 2020 Rules .

4. Rule 6 of 2020 Rules provides for procedure for appointment and Rule 10 provide for terms of the office of the Presidents and members. He submits that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Limaye-I (supra), another Civil Appeal was filed arising out of SLP(C) No. 36217/2025 (Urmila Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limae & ors.(supra) and held that notwithstanding in the said judgment as an interim measure the Court deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant to be reemployed as a Member (Judicial) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission forthwith. It is further clarified that the appellant upon reappointment shall be deemed to be continued uninterruptedly with effect from 01.12.2025 till the fresh recruitment is made and/or the rules are suitably amended by the State Government in consultation with the High Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, different High Courts have relied upon the judgment and passed several judgments. He submits that the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. The State of Rajasthan passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10174/2022 dated 18th March, 2026 held that:

“Since the tenure of the Presidents/Members of the State Consumer Commission/District Consumer Commission in the State of Rajasthan is coming to an end and/or has ended, but no fresh appointments have been made