JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired Judge of this Court and has preferred this Writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned letter dtd. 16/5/2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of amended Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2020') has been denied AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make necessary modification in the order of appointment/notification dtd. 13/8/2021 (Annexure P-2) issued to the petitioner in consonance with the amended Rule 10 of 2020.

(2.) The brief facts of this case which need to be noticed are that the petitioner, who is a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was appointed as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') on 13/8/2021. Her appointment order reflects that she was appointed as President of the State Commission in terms of the Rules of 2020 notified under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2019') on whole time basis for a term of 4 years, or till she attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, from the date she assumes the charge of the post.

(3.) In terms of the said order, she joined on 13/8/2021 and presently holding the charge of the President of the State Commission.