S CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as Member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, overlooking his claim. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. The Kerala Government invited applications from eligible person for appointment as Members of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by notification dated 22-2-2006. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The selection was made by a committee, consisting of the President of the State Commission, the Law Secretary of the Government of Kerala and the Secretary to Government, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. By Ext. P1, the petitioner was called for an interview on 28-2-2006. Later, the said interview was adjourned and held on 2-3-2006. The petitioner submits, he performed well in the interview and his name was recommended by the selection committee. But, to his surprise, the 5th respondent was appointed as the Member of the State Commission along with the 6th respondent, by the Government by Ext. P3 notification dated 11-5-2006. The petitioner submits, the 5th respondent was not recommended by the selection committee and his appointment is against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed there under. According to him, the 5th respondent was selected, owing to the political pressure exerted by him. So, his appointment is vitiated by mala fides also. The main grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are the following:

(3.) Ext. P3 notification is issued in violation of the Rules governing the selection and appointment. The said notification has been issued without application of mind. It is also vitiated by favouritism and nepotism. Ext. P3 is the result of colourable exercise of power. The 5th respondent was appointed in a hurry. Only a candidate recommended by the selection committee can be appointed as Member. The 5th respondent was not duly recommended by the committee. It is understood that adverse remarks were made against the said respondent by the selection committee. Though other candidates were available, the 5th respondent was selected as the favourite of the 1st respondent. At the relevant time, the 5th respondent was employed as the Private Secretary to the Finance Minister. It is a political appointment. So, he is disqualified to discharge the judicial functions of a Member of the State Commission, which are akin to that of a Civil Court. The 5th respondent's appointment is opposed to the proviso to Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The statement in Ext. P3 that the appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee, is not correct. The impugned order violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner, guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P3 to the extent, it appoints the 5th respondent.