P. Vijayasankar v. The Secretary,Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry & Ors.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09..12..2009C O R A MThe Honourable Mr. H.L. Gokhale, CHIEF JUSTICEandThe Honourable Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar Writ Petition Nos.23404, 24770 and 25178 of 2009P. Vijayasankar.. Petitioner inW.P. No.23404 of 2009P. Saravanan.. Petitioner inW.P. No.24770 of 2009The General Secretary, M.S.Mardhupandian,Pondicherry Bar Association,.. Petitioner inCourt Building, Puducherry.W.P. No.25178 of 2009versus1.The Secretary,Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry.2.The Secretary to Government,Law Department,Union Territory of Puducherry, .. Respondents in W.P.Puducherry. Nos.23404 & 25178 of 20091.Union Territory of Puducherry,Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government,Puducherry.2.The Secretary to the Government,Law Department,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry.3.The Secretary to the Government,Civil Supplies Department,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Chairman,Puducherry State Consumer Forum,Puducherry.5.The Registrar General,High Court of Judicature at Madras,.. Respondents in Chennai-104.W.P. No.24770 of 2009Prayer : W.P. No.23404 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing therespondents therein to fill up the post of President of the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry within a time frame tobe stipulated by this Court.W.P. No.24770 of 2009 filed praying for a writ of mandamusdirecting respondents 1 and 2 to immediately fill up the said post ofthe Chairman, District Consumer Forum, Puducherry on deputation, anyamong the officers of the District Judges of Puducherry JudicialServices.W.P. No.25178 of 2009 filed praying for a writ of mandamuscalling for the records pertaining to the Notification bearingNo.7938/DCS & CA/CAD-1/2008-09 dated 22.5.2009 published in thenewspaper Thina Malar, Puducherry and interview held on 29.7.2009 and30.7.2009 for the post of President in the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum and directing the respondents to fill up the post ofPresident of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Puducherry as per the above Notification within a time as fixed bythis Court and direct the respondents to declare the result andappoint any of the persons who have participated in the selectionprocess as per the interview held on 12.8.2009. For Petitioners : Mr. Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Anandaramani (in W.P. No.23404 of 2009) Mr. M. Gnanasekar (in W.P. No.24770 of 2009) Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for Mr. U. Karunakaran (in W.P. No.24770 of 2009)For Respondents : Ms. N. Mala, Govt. Advocate (Pondy) (for both the respondents in W.P. Nos.23404 & 25178 of 2009 and for respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. No.24770 of 2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R( By The Honourable The Chief Justice )Heard Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of Mr. C. Anandaramani for the petitioner in W.P. No.23404 of2009; Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2470 of 2009; and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counselappearing 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 25178of 2009 and also for respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. No.24770 of 209.2. All these three writ petitions are concerning the appointmentto the post of the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forumfor the Union Territory of Puducherry. All the petitioners seek anearly appointment to the said post since it is lying vacant for quitesome time now. W.P. No.23404 of 2009 seeks a direction to fill upthat post within a stipulated time frame; W.P. No.24770 of 2009 seeksa direction that the said post be filled up by bringing an officerfrom the District Judges of Puducherry on deputation basis; and W.P.No.25178 of 2009 seeks a direction that a person be appointed fromamongst those who participated in the selection process as per theinterviews held on 12.8.2009. 3. As far as the appointment to the post of President of theDistrict Consumer Redressal Forum is concerned, Section 10(1)(a) ofthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that each District Forumshall consist of a person who is, or has been a District Judge, whoshall be its President. Thus, as the Section is worded, a person whois 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 isqualified to be a District Judge. Sub-section (1A) of this Sectionlays down that every appointment under sub-section (1) of the Act isto be made by the State Government on the recommendation of aSelection Committee consisting of three persons mentioned in thatsection, i.e., the President of the State Commission as its Chairman;and the Secretary of the Law Department of the State as well as theSecretary in-charge of the Department dealing with consumer affairsin the State as its Members. The proviso to Section 10(1A) is alsorelevant, in the sense that it lays down that when the President of aState Commission is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to actas Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government mayrefer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court fornominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman. 4. In the instant case, it appears that an advertisement callingfor applications for appointment to the said post was issued on22.5.2009, in pursuance to which some advocates did apply. However,no judicial officer had applied therefor and a panel of judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officers was also not obtained from the High Court and therefore, theGovernment of Puducherry passed an order on 17.11.2009 cancelling theearlier selection process.5. An affidavit affirmed by one Smti. P. Priytarshny, JointSecretary to Government of Puducherry and Director of Civil Suppliesand Consumer Affairs on 23.11.2009 has been filed, wherein it isstated that in pursuance to the order passed by the Government ofPuducherry cancelling the earlier selection process, the RegistrarGeneral of the Madras High Court was addressed for furnishing thepanel 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 8.12.2009, wherein itis stated that the Registry of this High Court has furnished a listof retired District Judges and the list has already been forwarded tothe Selection Committee for conduct of the process of selection andto make the selection at the earliest. It is further stated in thisaffidavit that this whole exercise may be completed within a periodof three months.6. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P. No.25178 of 2009 submits that when advocates hadapplied earlier, there was no reason for the Government to cancel theearlier selection process.7. As can be seen from the provisions of the Act itself, Section10(1)(a) speaks of a person who is, or has been, a District Judge tobe the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Ofcourse, it also includes a person who is qualified to be a DistrictJudge, which would mean an advocate.8. In this regard, it is material to note that the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission has issued a directive underSection 24-B of the Act, giving precedence to the District Judges inthe matter of appointments to the post of President of the DistrictForum. The guidelines issued by the National Commission specificallystate that if serving or retired District Judges are not available,it will be open to the Selection Committee to make the appointmentfrom amongst the advocates. This guideline has also been approved bya Division Bench of this Court in C. Lakshmi Narain vs. Government ofTamil Nadu, (2008) 4 M.L.J. 1. Paragraph 10 of this judgment readsas follows :-"10. In our opinion, the directive issued by theNational Commission under Section 24-B of the ConsumerProtection Act cannot be said to be contrary to theprovisions of Section 10(1-A) of the Consumer ProtectionAct. All that the directive says is that precedence shouldbe given to the District Judges or retired District Judgeshaving regard to the experience gained by them in discharge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of their duties as judicial officer. If serving or retiredDistrict Judges are not available, it is always open to theCommittee to make appointments from amongst advocates, andit is not correct to say that the advocates are excludedfrom consideration for the post of President of the DistrictFora. In our opinion, the National Commission has issuedthis directive keeping in view the purpose sought to beachieved by enactment of Section 10(1-A) and in the interestof better administration of the District Fora."9. In this state of affairs, if the Government of Puducherrydeemed it appropriate to cancel the earlier selection process sincethere were no District Judges who had applied for selection, suchdecision cannot be faulted with. There are two categories ofapplicants who are expected. Since one category which is given aprecedence under the Act was not available, the advertising bodydeemed it appropriate that the selection process be cancelled and inour view, such a decision cannot be said to be in any way illegal,especially in view of the directive of the National Commission, asalso the above decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. 10. The Government of Puducherry has stated on affidavit that ithas now received a panel of retired District Judges from the HighCourt, which has already been forwarded to the Selection Committeeand that a decision will be taken in the matter within a period ofthree months hereon. This being the position, the prayer of thepetitioner in W.P. No.24770 of 2009 to appoint a serving judicialofficer as the President of the District Forum on an ad hoc basisneed not be entertained. 11. All the three writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1, 1 and 1 & 2of 2009 in the respective writ petitions are closed. Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarabTo1.The Chief Secretary to the Government, Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry.2.The Secretary to the Government,Law Department,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Secretary to the Government,Civil Supplies Department,Union Territory of Puducherry,Puducherry.4.The Chairman,Puducherry State Consumer Forum,Puducherry.5.The Registrar General,High Court of Judicature at Madras,Chennai-104.6. The Secretary, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Raja Srinivas,Advocate,SR.67718+ 1 cc to Mr.U.Karunakaran,Advocate,SR.67858+ 1 cc to Government Pleader,(Pondy)SR.67180W.Ps.23404, 24770 & 25178/2009BK(CO)EM/21.12.09