Recruitment for State Consumer Commissions cannot proceed under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 if key provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court and a mandate exists to wait for the notification of new Rules by the Union of India.

ORDER

Date : 31.07.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A.

Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P.

Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenge Advertisement No. 33/2025 dated 13.12.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the Notification dated 02.07.2026 published in

the English daily The Assam Tribune.

3. The primary challenge is to the impugned advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Member of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Non-Judicial) under the Consumer

Page No.# 3/6

Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consumer

Protection Rules, 2020”).

4. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, notwithstanding the fact that the Apex Court in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar and Others v. Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others , reported in (2025) 8 SCC 634, had struck down certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 and directed that fresh Rules be notified before the recruitment process could proceed, the impugned advertisement has been issued without any such fresh Rules having been framed. While issuing notice by order dated 22.07.2026, this Court, before considering the prayer for interim relief, had granted an opportunity to the learned State Counsel to apprise the Court as to whether fresh Rules had been framed pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Apex

Court.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General, fairly submits that no fresh Rules have been framed till date. However, by placing reliance upon a letter dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, he submits that in exercise of the powers under Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 and in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar

Page No.# 4/6

(supra), the Government of Assam has reconstituted the Selection Committee. It is, therefore, contended that the proposed selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement is in conformity with the

directions issued by the Apex Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for interim relief and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the Apex Court in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar (supra) categorically affirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20.10.2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9982, 9987, 9983- 9985, 9989, 9990 and 9965-9967 of 2024, whereby Rules 6(1) and

10(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 were struck down.

7. It is also apposite to refer to paragraph 105 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

“Directions

105. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we deem it fit to pass the following directions, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article

142 of the Constitution:-

105.1. The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibilit