SUBHASH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Member of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short 'the Commission' ). He was nominated by the State Government as a Member of the Commission by order dated 23/2/1996, in exercise of powers under Sec. 16(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act' ). Separate appointment order of the same date was also issued by the State Government. In the notification, it was not specified as to whether he was being appointed on full time or part time basis but in the appointment order, his appointment was stated to be on part time basis. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment stated in the appointment letter, the appointment was for a period of five years or till completion of 67 years of age by the petitioner, whichever was earlier. It was specifically stated in the order that the petitioner could be removed from his post under the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Act. A condition was also imposed that the petitioner shall surrender his licence to practice as an Advocate during his tenure as a Member of the commission and he shall not be entitled to practice during the tenure of his appointment as a Member. It was also specifically stated that the terms and conditions of his service shall be regulated by the Rules.

(2.) THE petitioner discharged his duties as a Member of the Commission till he was removed vide notification dated 1. 5. 99 issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Rajasthan. No reasons were stated in the notification for the removal except the reason that it was not in public interest to allow the petitioner to continue as a Member of the Commission. Aggrieved by his removal vide notification dated 1. 5. 99, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) MOREOVER, the complaint of the Chairman in the two letters dated 6/6/1998 and 29/6/1998 was mostly against the lady Member. In letter dated 6. 6. 98, what was stated against the petitioner was as under:-