K KANAKACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this case is concerning the interpretation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts leading to the case are the following:

(2.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 notification, by which respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as members of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The Commission consists of a President and 4 members, in the light of Section 16(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 16 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005. Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act deals with the appointment of President of the Commission, who is or has been a Judge of a High Court. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act deals with the appointment of other members. The proviso to Section 16(1)(b) says that not more than 50% of the members to be appointed should be persons having a judicial background. The meaning of "person having a judicial background" is explained in the explanation to that proviso. Going by the said proviso, it would appear that the Presiding Officer of a District level Court or Tribunal at equivalent level is eligible to be considered as a person having a judicial background. Rule 17 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules says that persons who are having a judicial background should be appointed from a panel obtained from the High Court. The petitioner submits, he was one of the three persons included in the panel forwarded by the High Court, for appointment as persons having a judicial background. But, only one of the persons from that panel was appointed as member of the State Commission. Now, the present position is that the State Commission consists of a President and 4 members. Out of those four members, only one person is having a judicial background. Therefore, the petitioner submits, out of the persons appointed under Ext. Pl, one should be removed and another person with a judicial background should be appointed. Reliance is also placed on the 3rd proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act in support of this submission.

(3.) Respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate counter-affidavits supporting Ext. Pl.