Kerala High Court
Renu.P.Gopalan vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2021
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/2ND ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
RENU.P.GOPALAN,AGED 42 YEARS,D/O.V.GOPALAN, PURAKKATTU
HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683556.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
SRI.S.RENJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CONSUMER AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 RENJITH R.
ADVOCATE, 4B, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KAWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
SRI. PRADEEP C.P SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2021, THE COURT ON 24.9.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for the post of Member to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Commission). The petitioner attended an interview conducted by the selection committee in connection with the selection process. Thereafter, she was waiting for the outcome of the selection. It is the case of the petitioner that she reliably learned that the selection committee consisting of the then President of the State Commission and other members of the selection committee, prepared list of candidates who were found suitable for the appointment as Member of the State Commission and forwarded their recommendation to the 1st respondent for making the appointment in accordance with Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short Act 1986). According to the petitioner, she obtained the highest mark. Ext P6 produced along with the reply affidavit is the minutes of the selection committee. From the above minutes, it is clear that the petitioner obtained 150 marks, and the other two candidates obtained 135 marks and 120 marks respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that eventhough she obtained the highest mark, the petitioner was not W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 3 appointed. The petitioner contended that in order to deny the appointment to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent cancelled the selection process referred to above and invited applications afresh for the post of Member of the State Commission, obviously with the intention to avoid the petitioner and to make an appointment by choosing their own person arbitrarily.
2. Aggrieved by the above cancellation of the selection process, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.9221 of 2017. The writ petition was heard in detail and this Court as per Ext P1 judgment allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government Order impugned and the fresh notification inviting applications. This Court directed the Government to complete the selection process by appointing one among the candidates included in the recommendation forwarded by the selection committee for the appointment. Ext P1 judgment was challenged by the State. But as per Ext P2 judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench confirming Ext P1.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was waiting for the appointment order. When there was no response, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.3484 of 2018 and in that writ petition, the 1st respondent submitted that no decision had been taken to appoint the Member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This Court as per Ext P3 judgment, was directed to take an appropriate and necessary decision within two W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 4 months. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext P4 order appointing the 4th respondent as the Member of the State Commission. According to the petitioner, the selection committee has not made any recommendation to appoint 4th respondent as a Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The case of the petitioner is that in the light of Exts P1 and P2 judgment of this Court, the 1 st respondent is bound to appoint candidates based on their merit and eligibility. In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers.
i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;
ii. Declare that the petitioner is the most eligible candidate for appointment to the post of member of Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission pursuant to notification dated 10.08.2016;
iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint petitioner as member of Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as per the recommendation of the selection committee;
iv. Pass such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And Allow this Writ petition with cost.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. I also heard the counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 5 The definite case of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent appointed a person who obtained less marks than the petitioner. The counsel takes me through Ext P5 minutes of the selection committee in which it is clear that the 4th respondent obtained only 135 marks and the petitioner obtained 150 marks. The counsel submitted that the reasons stated by the 1st respondent for overlooking the petitioner is unsustainable. The counsel takes me through Exts P6 to P11 documents produced in the reply affidavit to substantiate that the reason mentioned by the 1 st respondent for denying the appointment to the petitioner is unsustainable. The counsel also relied the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandramohan Nair v George Joseph (2010(4)KLT 267) and submitted that if the State Government does not want to accept the recommendations of the selection committee, then the reason for doing so are to be recorded. The counsel also submitted that, if the grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent is accepted, that will be a stigma on the petitioner. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that, she is the person who obtained the maximum mark as evident by Ext P5 and the reason for overlooking the petitioner is unsustainable.
5. The Government Pleader argued based on the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. The Government Pleader submitted that in Ext P1 judgment, this Court observed that the selection committee is not W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 6 expected to or called upon to prepare the selection list of candidates in the order of merit and suitability. This Court observed that the rank list forwarded by the selection committee can be treated as a panel of suitable candidates forwarded by the selection committee to the Government. It is submitted by the Government Pleader that this Court also found that once the selection committee recommends list of qualified candidates, the Government is free to appoint any candidates recommended by the selection committee. The Government Pleader relied Annexure-R2(a) report to submit that, when the petitioner was working as Member of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kottayam, the Government received complaints against the petitioner raising some serious allegations. Consequent to Annexure-R2(a), the Government recommended a detailed enquiry in accordance with the Consumer Protection Rules 2005. In such circumstances, it is not fair and just to appoint a person as a Member of the State Commission because the State Commission is an adjudicating authority. Hence, it is stated that the 4th respondent was appointed. The counsel for the 4 th respondent also supported the contention of the Government Pleader. The counsel submitted that even in Ext P1 order, it is clearly stated that the selection committee is recommending a list of qualified candidates and the Government is free to appoint any candidate recommended by the selection committee. Therefore, the counsel submitted that there is W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 7 nothing wrong on the part of the 1 st respondent in appointing the 4th respondent as a Member.
6. I perused the pleadings and arguments and considered the contentions of the parties. Admittedly this Court as per Ext P1 judgment quashed the decision of the Government to re-notify the post and directed to appoint one among the candidates included in the recommendations forwarded by the selection committee for appointment after considering their eligibility. Ext P5 is the minutes of the selection committee. It is true that the petitioner received more marks than the 4th respondent as evident by Ext P5. But the petitioner was overlooked by the Government for certain reasons mentioned in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. The relevant provisions which deal with the appointment of a member in State Commission by the Government are Section 16 of Act 1986 and Rule 17 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules 2005 (for short Rule 2005). Section 16 of the Act 1986 is extracted hereunder.
16. Composition of the State Commission.--(1) Each State Commission shall consist of -
(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President.
Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court;
(b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 8 shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:
Provided that not more than fifty per cent of the members shall be from amongst persons having a judicial background.
Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, the expression "persons having a judicial background"
shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or any tribunal at equivalent level:
Provided further that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he-
(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or
(e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest, as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or
(f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government.W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 9
[(1A) Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the following members, namely:-
(i)President of the State Commission Chairman;
(ii)Secretary of the Law Department of the State Member;
(iii)Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State Member Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.
(1B) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit.
(iii) If the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more or the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.
(2) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of, the members of the State Commission shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.
Provided that the appointment of a member on whole-time basis shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the President of the State Commission taking into consideration such factors as may be prescribed including the work load of the State Commission.
3. Every member of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier:
Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 10 whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee:
Provided further that a person appointed as a President of the State Commission shall also be eligible for re-appointment in the manner provided in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section:
Provided also that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who is required to be appointed under the provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), a person appointed as the President or as a member, before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall continue to hold such office as President or member, as the case may be, till the completion of his term.
Similarly Rule 17 of the Rule 2005 is also extracted hereunder:
17. Appointment of whole-time members in the State Commission. -- (1) The President of the State Commission shall be appointed by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala.
(2) Appropriate panel of candidates for consideration of appointment as judicial members to the State Commission shall be called for by the Department in charge of Consumer Affairs in Government from the High Court of Kerala.
(3) In the case of other members of the State Commission, appropriate panel of candidates for consideration of appointment shall be called for by the Department in charge of Consumer Affairs in Government from the concerned District Collectors and the District Collectors may, after due publicity, furnish a short listed panel of candidates, not exceeding three candidates per vacancy, with relevant documents and details to the Government after due verification and scrutiny of the qualification and other eligibility criteria prescribed in the Act and these Rules:
Provided that the Government (Department dealing with the Consumer Affairs) may, if necessary, advertise directly for the purpose:W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 11
Provided further that the panel so obtained, after further scrutiny and short-listing, shall be placed before the Selection Committee at the appropriate time by the convener of the Selection Committee. The Secretary to Government in charge of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State shall be the convener of the Selection Committee:
Provided also that the Selection Committee shall finalise a panel of candidates, by adopting such methods as the Selection Committee may deem fit, and the list of qualified candidates so finalised, shall be sent for consideration of appointment by the Government.
7. As per Section 16(1A) of the Act 1986, the appointment under sub section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the President of the State Commission as the Chairman, Secretary of the Law Department of the State as Member and the Secretary in charge of the department dealing with consumer affairs in the State as the 2 nd Member. Third proviso to Rule 17(3) says that the selection committee shall finalize a panel of candidates by adopting such methods as the selection committee may deem fit and the list of qualified candidates so finalised shall be sent for consideration of appointment by the Government.
8. Admittedly, the selection committee forwarded a panel to the Government in accordance to Rule 17 in which the petitioner is included.
It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is the person who obtained more marks compared to the 4th respondent, who is appointed as a member of the State Commission. The short point to be decided is W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 12 whether the action of the 1 st respondent in appointing the 4th respondent overlooking the petitioner, when the petitioner was given more mark by the Selection Committee. The authority of the Government to appoint one among the selection panel is discussed by this Court in State of Kerala v. Reghu Varma (2009(3) KLT 634). The relevant paragraph is paragraph 7 of the above judgment, the same is extracted hereunder:
" 7. The provision under the Act is very clear. The appointment is to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. The appointing authority is the Government. As rightly held by this court in Chandramohan Nair v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 273), the Legislature has not divested the power of appointment from the Government while making provision of a Selection Committee. But the appointing authority does not have unfettered discretion in making the appointment. The appointment has to be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. We find from the records that what the Government directed the Selection Committee also was, to "furnish the panel" for filling up the vacancies. Under R.28(b)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, appointments to posts in a selection category or grade in a service or class, other than Heads of Departments, shall be made from a select list prepared from among the members eligible for appointment to such category or grade on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. It has also to be seen that the select list thus prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee is only in respect of the vacancies estimated for a year. That select list is placed before the Government only for its approval and the same is published under the Rules. Only under exceptional circumstances, in public interest, the Government is in a position to depart from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee. That is not the scheme or procedure or power in the Selection Committee under the Consumer Protection Act and the Kerala Rules. Though the Act and the Rules have used the expression "Selection Committee", and though in common parlance the Selection Committee is expected to prepare a select list on assessment of merit of each candidate, under the Consumer Protection Act and its Rules in the State, the duty cast on the Selection Committee is only to recommend a panel, Under R. 7(3), the Committee is given freedom to adopt any method as the Committee feels fit for finalising the panel. On finalising the panel, W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 13 under the Rules the Selection Committee forwards ".... the list of qualified candidates so finalised" to the Government for consideration for appointment. In other words, the duty cast on the Selection Committee under the Act and the Rules is, by whatever method they deem fit, to assess whether the candidates placed before them by the Government for finalising the panel are duly qualified, in the sense whether they are suitable and qualified to hold the position of either President or Member, and nothing more or nothing less. Under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, the select list is prepared based on merit and ability and the incumbents are ranked on the basis of such assessment made by the Selection Committee; whereas under the Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and the State Rules the Selection Committee has no such power. The power conferred on them is only to finalise a panel of candidates after subjecting the candidates to whatever test they may deem fit for the purpose of assessing their merit, suitability etc. for holding the post. The Committee is not expected to or called upon to prepare a select list of candidates in the order of merit and suitability. Thus all the candidates included in the list of qualified candidates finalised by the Selection Committee are duly recommended by the Selection Committee. Once the Selection Committee recommends a list of qualified candidates, the appointing authority is free to appoint any candidate recommended by the Selection Committee. No doubt unless recommended by the Selection Committee, the appointing authority cannot make any appointment. In other words, the appointing authority, namely the Government, cannot appoint the candidate outside the list of qualified candidates furnished by the Selection Committee and only to that extent there is a fetter or restriction on the power and method of appointment of the President and Members of the various Forums under the Consumer Protection Act and its State Rules, on the Government." (emphasis supplied)
9. This Court in the above judgment clearly stated that the duty cast upon the selection committee under the Act and Rules is, by whatever method deem it fit, to assess whether the candidates placed before them by the Government for finalising the panel are duly qualified and whether they are suitable to hold the position of a Member and nothing more or nothing less. This Court observed that as per the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and State Rules, the selection W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 14 committee has no power to prepare the select list based on merit and ability and to give rank on the basis of such assessment made by the selection committee. The Division Bench observed that the power conferred on them is only to finalize a panel of candidates after subjecting the candidates to whatever test, they may deem fit for the purpose of assessing their merit suitability etc. for holding the post. The Division Bench clearly stated that the Committee is not expected to or called upon to prepare a select list of the candidate in the order of merit and suitability. In other words, the Government is free to appoint any candidate recommended by the selection committee. The selection committee recommends a list of qualified candidates to the Government and all candidates included therein shall be deemed to be suitable for appointment and that the Government is free to appoint anyone among them. Therefore, there is no rank list is contemplated when a panel is sent to the Government by the selection committee. All the 3 members are suitable for the appointment.
10. The apex court in Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph (2010(4) KLT 267) observed that the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendation made by the selection committee and if it does not want to accept the recommendations, then the reason for doing so had to be recorded. The relevant portion of the above judgment is paragraph 16 and the same is extracted hereunder:W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 15
"16. An analysis of these provisions shows that appointment of judicial and other members is required to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Chairman and/or the members of the Selection Committee do not agree on the candidature of any particular person, then opinion of the majority would constitute recommendation of the Selection Committee. Though, the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, if it does not want to accept the recommendations, then reasons for doing so have to be recorded. The State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of the Selection Committee. If the appointment made by the State Government is subjected to judicial scrutiny, then it is duty bound to produce the relevant records including recommendation of the Selection Committee before the Court to show that there were valid reasons for not accepting the recommendation".
11. The apex court observed that State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of the selection committee. I perused the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent in this case along with Annexure R2(a). The stand of the Government is that in Annexure-R2(a) preliminary enquiry report, there is a finding against the petitioner and hence the Government recommended for a detailed enquiry in accordance with Consumer Protection Rules, 2005. In such circumstances, the Government concluded that, it is not fair and just to appoint a person like the petitioner as a Member of the State Commission, because the said body is an adjudicatory one. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit rejecting the contentions in Annexure-R2(a). The petitioner has got different explanation to the findings in the preliminary enquiry. According to me, this Court need not decide the correctness of the preliminary W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 16 report or the genuineness of the allegation or observation against the petitioner in Annexure-R2(a) preliminary report. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Government relied Annexure-R2(a) and filed a statement before this Court in which it is stated that the petitioner is not a suitable person, that will create a stigma on the petitioner. I cannot agree with the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, Annexure R2(a) is only a preliminary enquiry, and it is subject to the final decision in the detailed enquiry ordered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Rules 2005. Therefore, there will not be any stigma because of Annexure-R2(a) as contended by the petitioner because it is subject to the final decision in the detailed enquiry.
12. When this Court clearly stated that the panel submitted by the selection committee is not based on merit and it cannot be treated as a rank list and the Government can choose any of the person in the list supplied by the selection committee, this Court cannot find fault with the 1st respondent for selecting the 4th respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case. Annexure-R2(a) preliminary report is not denied by the petitioner. It is a fact that there was a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and others and there is some observation in Annexure-R2(a) against the petitioner also which is to be considered in detail in the detailed enquiry. In such circumstances, the Government decided to appoint 4th respondent instead of the petitioner. I see no W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 17 reason to interfere with the selection process conducted by the Government. The correctness of Annexure-R2(a) need not be considered by this Court at this stage. All the members in the panel submitted by the selection committee are eligible to be appointed in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Reghu Varma's case. The Government selected the 4th respondent instead of the petitioner. The Government submitted before this Court that since there is an allegation against the petitioner and there is an observation in the preliminary report as evident by Annexure-R1(a), the Government decided to appoint 4th respondent instead of the petitioner. I see no reason to interfere with such a finding of the Government. According to me, the petitioner is not entitled any relief in this petition.
Therefore, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE cms W.P(C) No.15568 of 2018 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15568/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-09-2017 IN WP(C)NO.9221/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-11-2017 IN W.A.NO.2316/2017 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-03-2018 IN WP(C)NO.3484/2018 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(P)NO.4/2018/CAD DATED 12-4-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT P5
COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS OBTAINED BY ME UNDER RI
ACT
EXT P6 COPY OF REPORT OF ENQUIRY REGARDING THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM DTD 21.2.2018
EXT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 28.12.2017 OF SRI.BOSE
AUGUSTINE, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM ADDRESSED TO THE
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
EXT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 19.8.2017 IN CC 351/12
UPLOADED BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE WEBSITE
EXT P9 COPY OF THE SAID DISSENTING NOTE DTD
13.11.2017 BY THE PETITIONER
EXT P10 COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD 30.5.2017 IN
APPEAL NO.1/2018 AND APPEAL NO.179/2018 OF
THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION.
EXT P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30.1.2019 IN CC
257/2018 OF CDRF, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE-R2(a): COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY REGARDING THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM DATED 21.2.2018
/True copy/ P.S.TO JUDGE
cms