KASINATH PANIGRAHY Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired officer of the Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch), has filed this writ petition challenging the notification dated 20.9.2010 appointing opposite party No.3 as Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa Cuttack on the ground that his appointment is in clear violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19577 of 2009 dated 25.2.2010. The question, according to the petitioner for consideration is as to whether the notification issued by opposite party No.2 dated 20.9.2010 appointing opposite party No.3 as Member of the Commission is in terms of Section 16 of the Act relating to the composition of the State Commission, (2) whether opposite party No.3 is a person having judicial background as required under Section 16 of the Act and is eligible with reference to the first proviso the Section 16 by satisfying the explanation given therein, (3) whether the notification dated 20.9.2010 relating to the composition of the State Commission is legally justified and whether such notification complies with the mandatory provision contained in the statute relating to composition of the State Commission; (4) whether the opposite party No.3 having not satisfied the criteria laid down in the Act can be a part of the State Commission along with the existing President and Women Member; (5) whether opposite party No.2 was right in appointing opposite party No.3 despite clear direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition for selecting candidate out of the list prepared in the first round of interview in which the petitioner stood first and (6) whether the appointment of opposite party No.3 as member of the State Commission is in direct conflict with the observation and direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid earlier writ petition order. The aforesaid points are formulated in the back drop of the following facts.

(2.) The petitioner after serving as a Member of the Superior Judicial Service, retired as a District Judge. Opposite party No.3 was earlier appointed as a Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, SCDRC) vide notification dated 3.12.2004 for a period of five years which came to an end after lapse of five years. Before the vacancy was caused, an advertisement was issued in the daily the Samaj dated 24.6.2009 annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition inviting applications for appointment as President/Member in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Member of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa. At the time of issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the State Commission was comprising of the President who is a retired Judge of the High Court, one women member who was a retired District Judge coming from Judicial background and the opposite party No.3. After the advertisement was issued, both the petitioner and opposite party No.3 submitted their applications and a select list was prepared in which the petitioner stood first and opposite party No.3 stood second. When the matter stood thus, another advertisement was issued published in the daily newspaper vide Annexure-2 on 9.11.2009 inviting applications for selection for the post of President and Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as for the Member of the State Commission. Opposite party No.3 who stood No.2 in the selection pursuant to the first advertisement, filed a writ petition before this Court. In the said writ petition opposite party No.3 prayed for quashing of the impugned letter Annexure-7 which is a letter asking him to appear before the Select Committee in the second round of interview and also for a direction to complete the process of selection and appoint the petitioner as a Member of the OSCDRC.

(3.) In the aforesaid earlier writ petition, counter statement was filed by the State Government contending that the petition filed by opposite party No.3 was devoid of merit and therefore requested for its dismissal. Further it was stated in the counter affidavit that opposite party No.3 was not required to be appointed as a Member of the Commission. This Court after hearing the parties keeping the factual background in view passed an order on 25.2.2010 specifically directing the State Government in the operative portion that second round of interview for the post of Member was not just and proper or in consonance with law. Therefore, the second interview for the said post was quashed and specific direction was given to the State Government to select the candidates out of the list prepared in the first round of interview and the entire exercise was directed to be completed preferably by first week of March.