RAM KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter has come up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order passed by the Court on 06/10/2009 but looking to the nature of controversy and with the consent of counsel for the parties, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally.

(2.) The petitioner, is a lawyer by profession, was appointed as Member, District Consumer Forum, Bharatpur vide order dated 24/01/2006 for a term of five years or upto the 65 years of age whichever is earlier.

(3.) It appears from the record that because of some alleged complaints of which reference has been made by the petitioner as well, an in-house enquiry was conducted by the Member, State Commission, who has also been impleaded as respondent No.4, who submitted its report (Anx.3) in regard to the allegations on which this Court would not like to express any opinion at this stage. However, taking note of the report furnished a notice was served upon the petitioner by the Registrar, State Commission, Jaipur dt. 15th September, 2009. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that as he was appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Form by the State Government and under Sub-section 1-A of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 appointment of a member under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted under Sub-Section 1-A of section 10 of the Act, 1986.