H R NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE PF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed in public interest by the petitioners for quashing the notifications issued vide Annexures-B, C and D in the Official Gazettes by respondent 3 under Section 10(1-A) and 10(1-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inviting applications to fill up the posts of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and the members of Kolar, Bidar, Hassan and Kodagu Districts and also seeking mandamus directing the State Government respondent 1 to frame necessary Rules by exercise of powers under Section 30(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that necessary Rules are to be framed to lay down the procedure for inviting applications including the procedure regarding wide publication of the notification by different methods. The petitioners further seek framing of Rules for fixing the remuneration of the members. The petitioners contend that in respect of the Consumer Forums of the abovesaid Districts, applications have been invited, but the notifications calling for applications have not been published in two daily newspapers widely circulated in the respective areas. The said lapse is said to have caused lack of information to all the eligible persons to apply for the post. Therefore, they seek certiorari quashing the notifications issued calling for the applications vide Annexures-B, C and D.

(2.) Respondent 1 has filed objection statement submitting in para 3 that publication in the newspapers is valid and necessary. Further, traversing the allegations made by respondent 3, it is contended that there has been no failure on the part of the Government in providing budget for newspaper publication of the notifications calling for applications. In para 8, it is stated that the prayer in the writ petitions to set aside the notifications at Annexures-B, C and D be granted and suitable directions be given for issuing fresh notifications inviting applications.

(3.) Respondent 3 in the objection statement contends that Rule 12-A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 does not mandatorily insist publication of notification in the leading newspapers in India or by other means. The guidelines framed by the State Forum vide Annexure-R1 lays down the procedure consistent with the consensus arrived at in the meeting held on 17-8-2005 at New Delhi convened by the President of the National Consumer Forum and the Presidents of the State forums in India. In the said guidelines at Annexure-R1, it is stated that in two leading newspapers in Karnataka or in Karnataka Gazette or as may be decided by the Chairman of the Selection Committee, the publication of the notification is to be taken out. In the present case, it is stated that the notifications are widely circulated to all the Bar Associations all over the Karnataka, in all the District Consumer Forums in Karnataka, in all the District Courts of Karnataka, on the Notice Board of the State Commission and on the State Commission Website and also the information of the notifications are sent to Public Information Department and to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka. The wide circulation of the notifications to different authorities, different places and in the website is said to be a sufficient publication of the notifications to the notice of the aspiring eligible candidates to apply for the posts. It is stated that the contention that there has been no publication of the notifications and lack of publication disabled the petitioners to apply for the post is untenable.