E K JALALUDEEN RAWTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the President of a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, can be transferred by the Government. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) The petitioner is the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. He has been transferred by Ext.P2 order of the Government dated 30.09.2004, to Malappuram. He filed Ext.P4 representation dated 13.11.2004, against the said order. This Court, by Ext.P5 Judgment, directed the Government to consider the said representation. The Government considered and rejected the representation by Ext.P6 order dated 1.12.2005. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P2 and P6. Though, several grounds are taken in the Writ Petition, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that the transfer has been ordered without following the procedure provided under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said provision reads as follows:

(3.) The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in this Writ Petition. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Going by Ext.P2, it would appear that the transfer was not ordered on the recommendation of the committee, constituted under Section 10(1A) of the Act. This is a grave irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter. In several of the cases pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Government or its instrumentalities are parties. So, the Government cannot be conceded power to transfer the President of the Forum, according to its whims and fancies. If such a power is conceded to the Government, the President of the Forum will be compelled to look back over his shoulders occasionally, whether the Government are standing behind him with the dagger of transfer. So, for getting a convenient posting and for not disturbing him from a convenient place, the President of the District Forum will have to keep the Government in good humour. Such an Officer, while discharging the judicial functions, can never be independent. The pledge to do justice without fear or favour or affection or ill-will, will be difficult to keep. To be independent, he must be absolutely free from all types of influences. Independence of judiciary is one of the basic features of our Constitution, which cannot be tinkered with, even by the Parliament, in exercise of its amending power. So, the irregularity committed by the Government, in transferring the petitioner without following the procedure under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, makes the impugned orders vitiated. They are void ab initio. In the result, Exts.P2 and P6 are quashed. Liberty is given to the Government to reconsider the question of transfer of the petitioner, in consultation with the committee, constituted under Section 10(1A) of the Act.