MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to raise a challenge to Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020'). A declaration has also been sought that the petitioners who were the members at various District Commissions are eligible for re-appointment to the post of member of the District Commission under Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020.

(3.) Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2023 has been preferred by Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, a practising Advocate, who had earlier filed Writ Petition No.1096 of 2021 wherein challenge was raised to Rule 3(2)(d), Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 that came to be quashed by the judgment dtd. 14/9/2021 in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe Versus Union of India & Others [Public Interest Litigation No.11 of 2021 alongwith Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021]. The application for review filed by the State of Maharashtra was withdrawn on 24/3/2023 and a direction to complete the process of appointment within three months was issued. In addition to aforesaid challenge, the advertisement dtd. 23/5/2023 issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department (for short, 'the Department') of the State of Maharashtra is also under challenge. Notifications dtd. 10/4/2023 and 13/6/2023 constituting a Selection Committee for selection of President and members at the State Commission and the District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra are also under challenge. Writ Petition No. 2107 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners who are functioning as Members at District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra. Besides raising challenge to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020, the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the said Rules are challenged to the extent the tenure of the District Commission is restricted to a period of four years. The petitioners seek a declaration that they are eligible for being considered for re-appointment to the post of member in the light of the fact that they had earlier successfully completed the process of selection which included written examination and interview as per the Rules prevailing then. Writ Petition No. 2496 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners who were functioning as President/members of District Commissions in the State of Maharashtra. They also seek a declaration that they are eligible for being considered for re-appointment to the post of President/Members of the District Commission having completed the process of selection including written examination and interview as per the prevailing rules.