V. VARATHARAJAN AND OTHERS Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Advocates, practicing before this Court as well as the District Courts at Madurai and Tiruchirappalli respectively. In W.P(MD)No.9202 of 2017, the petitioner challenges the communication sent by the Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the Secretary, Madurai Bar Association, the fourth respondent herein, informing about the policy decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said Circular as it states that for appointment as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, preference will be given to either sitting Judges or retired District Judges and only if no retired District Judges are available, the applications will be received from advocates and can be considered for appointment to the Post of President.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the provisions of the Consumer Protection, 1986, [Act 68 of 1986], provide for constitution of National, State and District Level Tribunals. Section 10(1)(A) provides a person, who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, shall be the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Further, the said Section provides as to how the appointments should be made. In terms of the statutory provisions, appointments to the District Consumer Redressal Forums should be made on comparative merits and when the statute prescribes the same, the Circular issued by the National Commission, stating that preference will be given to either sitting Judges or retired District Judges and only if no retired District Judges are available, the application received from the Advocates can be considered for appointment to the post of President, virtually nullifies the provisions of the Act and infringes on the fundamental rights of Advocates to be considered for selection and appointment to the said posts. Further, it is submitted that circulars cannot over-ride the statute and such a policy decision of the National Commission cannot be a basis to nullify the statute and deprive Advocates of being considered and therefore, the Circular is liable to be quashed. When the policy decision is contrary to the provisions of the statute, it requires to be struck down as being illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) In W.P(MD)No.21921 of 2017, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Notification No.5 of 2017, dated 30.10.2017, issued by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by which, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Presidents in various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in the State of Tamil Nadu by direct recruitment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act.