SUSHEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the writ petitioner who failed in challenging the appointment of the third respondent as a Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Kozhikode. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that having regard to the nature of the amendments to S. 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", from time to time, it is apparently clear that the Legislature had done away with the insistence of 'social work' as a qualification, and therefore, merely because the third respondent is a social worker, she could not have been selected, having regard to the nature of S. 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act as it stands now. The second argument is that the files do not disclose any consideration of the comparable abilities to assess the comparative suitability of the selected candidates and hence, judicial review is consciously averted by the Government, by not making available the relevant materials. The argument is that the files should consist the materials on the basis of which the committee had to conclude as regards the selection. The learned counsel for the third respondent supported the judgment of the learned single Judge.

(2.) While the appellant claimed that she is a senior and experienced lawyer and a former member of the CDRF, the challenge was focused on the plea that the third respondent, who has been selected and appointed, does not possess the requisite qualification in terms of the provisions contained in S. 10 of the Act.

(3.) During the course of consideration of this appeal, it was noted that the Government did not file any counter affidavit before the learned single Judge. Hence, the Government was directed to make available the files relating to the selection. We have perused the files which contain the minutes drawn up by the selection committee constituted in terms of S. 10(1A) of the Act.