SUHAS MILIND UNTWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) The petitioner on being duly qualified came to be appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Buldana on 6/2/2013. On completion of her tenure of five years, she sought reappointment on the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by moving an application dtd. 17/10/2017. After conducting viva-voce examination in accordance with the Model Rules, 2012, the petitioner was re-appointed on the said post by the order dtd. 5/2/2018. The tenure of the petitioner was till 10/2/2023. However in view of the orders passed Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 [Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe Versus Union of India & Others], the said tenure was extended till 1/3/2023. In absence of any further order of continuation the petitioner demitted Office on 1/3/2023.

(3.) In Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe (supra) the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules of 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') were challenged. The Division Bench by its judgment dtd. 30/7/2021 upheld the said challenge and declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Union of India was directed to provide for appropriately made Rules as substitute for the Rules that were held to be unconstitutional. The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161]. The said appeals were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3/3/2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgment of this Court declaring the aforesaid Rules to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It however issued directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India indicating the course to be followed till the said Rules were amended.