ANNA MATHEW Vs. N KANNADASAN PRESIDING OFFICER TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.18731 of 2008 has been filed by several Advocates for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto questioning the legality and validity of the appointment of Respondent No.1 as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Initially in such writ petition, the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was impleaded as Respondent No.2, but, at the time when the matter was taken up for admission, counsel for the petitioners deleted the Honourable the Chief Justice from the array of the respondents.

(2.) W.P.No.21495 of 2008 has been filed by some other Advocates for issuing a writ of Declaration that the decision taken by the Full Court of the Madras High Court on 11.7.2008 is unconstitutional and non-est.

(3.) BEREFT of unnecessary and sordid details, the main allegations made in W.P.No.18731 of 2008, seeking for the issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto are to the effect that Respondent No.1 was appointed as Additional Judge for a period of two years, there was no confirmation or further extension and, therefore, in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India ([1981] Supp. SCC 87), the first respondent's continuance as a Judge was considered to be against public interest on the tests of intellectual and moral requirement. Since Respondent No.1 had not challenged his non-appointment as Judge after 5.11.2005, the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of the Supreme Court had become final. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners have raised several contentions regarding the legality and validity of the appointment of Respondent No.1 as President of the Commission by posing specifically the following questions :