Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This petition challenges the validity of the appointment of Respondent Nos.4 to 7 as Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ('DCDRC'), under Section 10 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA). The petition also prays for the striking down of Rule 5 (7) (b) and (c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowances and Condition of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and the District Forum) Rules, 2018 ('PCP Rules 2018') on the ground of it being ultra vires Section 30 read with Section 10 (1) (a) CPA as well as Rule 10 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 ('PSJS Rules').

1 of 11 Background facts

2. The background to the present petition is that a notice dated 14th December, 2018 was issued by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (SCDRC) inviting applications from suitable candidates for appointment to 11 posts of Presidents of DCDRCs in Punjab on whole time basis. The notice referred to Section 10 (1) (a) CPA in terms of which "a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, shall be the President of the District Consumer Forum". The notice further specified as under:

The form in which the candidates were to apply was also appended to the notice.

7. 62 applications were received pursuant to the aforementioned notice. They were scrutinized and examined by the SCDRC (Respondent No.2) and the Selection Committee (Respondent No.3) constituted in terms of Section 10 (1-A) CPA. It is stated on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that of the 62 applicants, 45 were found eligible subject to the production of the required documents. 13 of those found eligible were sitting/former Additional District & Sessions Judges (ADSJs) and District & Sessions Judges (DSJs); 2 were government servants such as District Attorney (DA) and Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation; 10 candidates were working/retired Presidents/Members of the DCDRCs and 20 candidates were practicing as Advocates. It is stated that from the Advocate category, those who were found eligible, were called for a written test and an interview. The applicants in other categories were called only for an interview. On the basis of interview the Selection Committee (Respondent No.3) made recommendations for appointment to 11 posts of Presidents of the DCRDCs under Section 10 (1A) CPA.

10. The Petitioner questioned the rejection of his candidature and submitted a representation dated 20th December, 2019. However, he did not receive any response. Thereafter the present petition was filed with prayers as noticed hereinbefore.

11. The Petitioner contends that Section 30 (2) CPA does not empower the State Government to prescribe rules for implementation of Section 10 (1) (a) CPA. He submits that insofar as Rule 5, and in particular Rule 5 (7) (b) and

(c) of the PCP Rules 2018, prescribed the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Presidents of the DCDRCs, it was ultra vires Section 30 read with Section 10 (1) (a) CPA as well as Rule 10 of the PSJS Rules read with Articles 233 and 236 of the Constitution of India. It is in the above background that the prayers, noted hereinabove, have been made in the present petition.