VIJAYALAKSHMI SHANMUGAM Vs. CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on the ground that the said appointment is ultra vires to proviso to Section 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Regulation 5 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, besides para 163(IV) & (V) of the Supreme Court decision N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, 2009 7 SCC 1. Petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, claims herself as an Activist of India Against Corruption Movement and the writ petition is filed under pro bono publico. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 7.3.2012, Mr.Justice M.Thanikachalam, former Judge of this Court, retired as President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and on 8.3.2012 the third respondent Mr.Justice R.Ragupathi, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. According to the petitioner, the said appointment is in violation of the provisions mentioned above and judgment of the Supreme Court referred above. In the grounds it is further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have overlooked the fact that the third respondent is already holding the post of Member of the Tamil Nadu Advisory Board, constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and due to holding of the said post, the third respondent cannot function in the full time post of the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and therefore the third respondent cannot be appointed as the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

(2.) In the supplementary affidavit filed it is further stated that the third respondent was also appointed as One-man Commission of Inquiry to probe the irregularities in construction of new Tamil Nadu Secretariat Complex, by Government Order dated 2.12.2011. According to the petitioner, the Commission of Inquiry will have to work throughout the day. Therefore the recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to appoint the third respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not proper.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during his arguments reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit by reading the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Regulations, 2005 and supplementary affidavit filed along with the writ petition and cited the following decisions: