VANDNA SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner is that vide impugned transfer order dtd. 6/7/2018 (Annexure P-5), she has been directed to perform duties as Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Faridkot by transferring her from Barnala.

(2.) One of the lead contentions of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that President of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, is not competent to transfer a Member of a District Consumer Forum under Sec. 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Prima facie, the said contention of learned senior counsel does not seem to be correct on a plain reading of Sec. 24-B, ibid.

(3.) In support of my opinion, learned counsel representing the State points out that the said controversy has been put to rest vide judgment dtd. 21/11/2016 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in case titled ' State of UP and others vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association' The relevant part thereof is reproduced herein below:-