{"id":295409,"date":"2023-06-26T17:00:18","date_gmt":"2023-06-26T11:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=295409"},"modified":"2023-06-28T16:56:26","modified_gmt":"2023-06-28T11:26:26","slug":"madras-high-court-quashes-notification-inviting-applications-for-appointment-as-member-in-consumer-forums","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/26\/madras-high-court-quashes-notification-inviting-applications-for-appointment-as-member-in-consumer-forums\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras High Court quashes notification inviting applications for appointment as member in Consumer Redressal Commissions in Tamil Nadu"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/b> In a writ petition filed against the notification dated 17-07-2022 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Principal Secretary to obtain permission from the Supreme Court 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, the division bench of R. Subramanian and L. Victoria Gowri held that the impugned notifications are bad in law, and thus quashed the same. Further, the subsequent selection procedure that has been undertaken was set aside.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/b><\/p>\n

The Central Government framed the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020<\/a>. These Rules were published in the Central Government Gazette on 15-07-2020 and they were to come into force on and from 20-07-2020.<\/p>\n

Some of these Rules, particularly Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) were challenged before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>,1<\/sup><\/a> wherein the Bench held that Rule 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2020<\/a> prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of President and Members of District Commission under the Act of 2019 is an attempt to circumvent the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Assn.<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (2021) 7 SCC 369<\/a> and State of U.P.<\/i> v. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Assn.<\/i>, (2017) 1 SCC 444<\/a><\/p>\n

Parallelly, the Supreme Court had initiated suo motu proceedings to monitor the actions taken by various State Governments to fill up the vacancies in the Consumer Fora all over the country in Various directions were issued by the Supreme Court in order to ensure that the State Governments fall in line in filling up the vacancies in the State and District Fora. Tamil Nadu took its own sweet time and issued the impugned notification was inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member in the District Consumer Redressal Commission in the State. Further, it was also inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member (Nonjudicial \/ earmarked for women candidate) in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.<\/p>\n

The challenge is mainly on the ground that the impugned notification is based on the Rules framed by the Central Government in the year 2020 and 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<\/a> by the Bombay High Court. Thus, notification based on the non-existent rule is bad in law.<\/p>\n

Issues:<\/b><\/p>\n