STATE OF KERALA Vs. RENU P.GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Kerala and its officers, who are respondents 1, 3 and 4, in W.P.(C)No.9221/17 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by Smt.Renu P.Gopalan, impugning Exts.P5 and P6 and also for a declaration that Rule 17(3) of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 ('the Rules', for short) is ultra vires the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was also a prayer to direct the first appellant to effect appointment to the post of Member of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from the panel forwarded by the Chairman of the Selection Committee in pursuance to Ext.P1.

(2.) By the judgment under appeal, after upholding the validity of Rule 17(3) of the Rules and holding the Rule to be directory, the learned Single Judge quashed Exts.P4, P5 and P6 and directed that appointments be made from the panel forwarded in pursuance to Ext.P1. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) there shall be established for the purposes of the Act, a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the "State Commission" established by the State Government. Section 16 of the Act deals with its composition and Section 17 provides for its jurisdiction. In terms of Section 16, the Commission shall consist of a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President and not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall be its members.