MATHEW DANIEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 herein who was a member of the Criminal Judicial Service and who retired on 28-2-1990 was appointed as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam. The petitioner who claims to be a social worker engaged in consumer protection activities, a member of Chathanoor Panchayat and the President of Kerala Karshaka Sanghom Chathanoor Panchayat committee has filed this Original Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.2 as President of the Forum on the ground that respondent No.2 is not qualified to be appointed as its President. Under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act each District Forum shall consist of "a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President" (the rest omitted as being not relevant at this stage). According to the petitioner since respondent No.2 is not a District Judge, was not a District Judge and is not qualified to be a District Judge he cannot be appointed as President of the District Forum. There is no case for the State or for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 was at any time a District Judge or that he is a District Judge. The appointment of respondent No.2 as President of the District Forum is sought to be justified on the ground that he is qualified to be a District Judge.

(2.) In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 it has been stated (at p. 494, Para 7):

(3.) There is no dispute that the office in question is a public office. In a sence the motive of the petitioner in approaching this court is questioned by submitting that he has no locus standi. But considering that what is questioned is the right of respondent No.2 to be President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dealing with the grievances of consumers in general, I am inclined to the view that the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to approach this court. The only question that has seriously to be considered is whether the appointment of respondent No.2 is so illegal as to deem him to be an usurper in the post. On that aspect, as noticed earlier, the only question is whether respondent No.2 could be said to be qualified to be a District Judge at the time of his appointment.