Madras High Court Quashes Notifications Inviting Applications For Appointment As Members To State, District Consumer Commissions
The Madras High Court has set aside two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department inviting applications for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observing that the notifications were based on Rules already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High...
The Madras High Court has set aside two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department inviting applications for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observing that the notifications were based on Rules already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench noted that the notifications were based on 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 which were already struck down on the date of the notification.
“We have to necessarily conclude that the impugned notifications are bad and they have to be accordingly quashed. If the notifications are bad and they are liable to be quashed, the subsequent selection procedure that has been undertaken would also suffer from the same vice,” the court said.
The challenge to the notification was made by V Sundararaj, who submitted that the Rules were declared to be ultra vires the constitution by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on September 14, 2021 itself especially Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) which related to requirement of experience and gave sweeping powers to the Selection committee.
He also submitted that this judgment of the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court on March 3 this year and thus when the striking down of rules has been upheld, the entire procedure relating to recruitment of non-judicial members in the consumer forums all over the State is vitiated.
Countering his arguments, the State submitted that the notifications were issued as per law and as per the orders of the Supreme Court in 2021 in a suo moto writ proceedings to monitor the actions of State Governments to fill up vacancies in the consumer Fora.
The Supreme Court had directed that the process of filing up of vacancies which have already been initiated should not be impeded by the judgment of the Nagpur Bench considering the importance of filling up of vacancies and considering that in some cases appointments had already been made or the process was in an advanced stage.
The court noted that even though the Supreme Court had initiated the Suo Moto proceedings to monitor states in 2021, the state of Tamil Nadu had issued the impugned notification in July 2022 after almost 10 months of the Nagpur Bench judgment.
“We find that several directions have been issued by the honourable Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No. 2 of 2021 on various dates, and all such directions have been flouted with impunity by the State of Tamil Nadu and eventually when the impugned notifications were issued on 17.07.2022, the judgement of the Nagpur Bench had been pronounced declaring some of the Rules, particularly, the Rules relating to experience required as unconstitutional,” the court observed.
The court added that when the Supreme Court in its orders in the Suo Moto proceedings directed that the appointment process should not be impeded, what was sought to be protected was the actions already taken whereas in the case of Tamil nadu, no such notification had even been issued on such date.
“The State had successfully dragged its feet on the appointments, despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was monitoring the action taken by the States in filling up the vacancies in the Consumer Fora,” the court added.
The court reiterated that once a Central Law or rule was held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the whole nation.
“The law is settled to the effect that once a provision of the Central Law or a Rule is held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the entire Nation and it cannot be said that it would not be valid within the jurisdiction of the particular High Court and it would be valid in other areas,” it said.
Thus, finding the impugned notifications to be bad in law, the court set aside the same.
Case Title: V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Mr.D.Venkatachalam
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Malaiyendran, Central Government Standing Counsel