Allahabad HC Directs Continuance Of Service By All Retiring Presidents, Members Of UP District Consumer Forum Till Supreme Court's Decision
While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation seeking continuance of service by all retiring Presidents and Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Uttar Pradesh till fresh appointments on the said posts are made, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the present members of the District Consumer Forum must continue on their posts till the decision of the...
While entertaining a Public Interest Litigation seeking continuance of service by all retiring Presidents and Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Uttar Pradesh till fresh appointments on the said posts are made, the Allahabad High Court has directed that the present members of the District Consumer Forum must continue on their posts till the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.
In the PIL, challenge has also been raised to the validity of Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection (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 on grounds that the age of retirement and the duration of term as fixed by the impugned Rule 10 is arbitrary and discriminatory, highlighting its impact on the timely filling of vacancies and the functioning of the consumer redressal system.
Rule 10 of the Rules provides for the term of office of President or Member.
“The President and every member of the State Commission and the District Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of sixty five years, and such reappointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee.”
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner highlighted that several DCDRC posts are currently vacant, with more expected to become vacant soon. It was stated that this situation is compounded by ongoing matters wherein defects/challenges to Rules, 2020 are under consideration before the Supreme Court, which has delayed the process of making new appointments.
Further, the petitioner, in the PIL, pleaded that the delay threatens to paralyze the consumer grievance redressal mechanism in Uttar Pradesh, leaving many consumers without a forum for their complaints.
Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's interim orders in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors wherein it has been directed that existing members should continue in service until further orders.
Counsel for the State argued that the Bombay High Court had struck down the Rules of 2020, against which proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. It was argued that since the case is pending before the Supreme Court, no fresh appointments could be made till the decision in that case.
Considering the uncertain timeline for the Supreme Court's final decision and the increasing number of vacancies, the bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar directed that current Presidents and Members of the DCDRCs shall continue in service until further orders, ensuring that the commissions remain functional. The Court, however, added that such directions shall be subject to the decision fo the Supreme Court.
The next date of hearing is July 12, 2024.
Counsel for Petitioner: Shivam Shukla
Title: Come On India Vs Union of India