GEORGE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Full Bench is constituted consequent upon orders dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 20715 of 2011. The matter initially came before the learned Single Judge, who opined that the issue involved in the case is of vital importance and needs to be considered by a Larger Bench and, therefore, vide order dated 06.01.2012, the learned Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench. The thought process of the learned Single Judge, while passing this order is of vital importance and we reproduce the said order in toto:-

(2.) As pointed out above, the Division Bench referred the matter for consideration by the Full Bench vide order dated 17.05.2012, Since this order reflects the genesis for referring the matter to a Larger Bench and also the question that arises for consideration before the Full Bench, at the outset, we reproduce the said order itself in its entirety:-

(3.) It is clear from the above that the Division Bench nurtured some doubts about the correctness of the view taken by earlier Division Bench in Varinder Pal Kashyap in so far as it pertains to the powers of the President of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) over the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). In essence, we are called upon to decide the extent of the powers of the President of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the precise question is as to whether Section 24-B of the Act or any other provision gives power to the President to withdraw the judicial and administrative work of the President of the District Forum, when the President has no power to take any disciplinary action like issuing charge-sheet or holding an inquiry against the President or any other Member of the District Forum.