RAM RAKH VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 29, 1990, the operation of the order dated November 26, 1990 (Annexure 5) by which the State Government rescinded its earlier order dated August 4, 1988 (Annexure 1) establishing six District Forums under Sec.9 (a), Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') was stayed qua the petitioners. Initially, the State of Rajasthan only was impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application for impleading Sarojini Bhati and Shantilal Sanklecha who were appointed as Members of the newly established District Forum, Jodhpur by order dated November 26, 1990 (Annexures R/7 and R/8) as respondents, it was allowed on March 15,1991 and notices were issued to them. They filed their joint reply. On April 23, 1991, they moved an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the said stay order.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed under Sec.10 (2) of the Act for 5 years, they could not be removed before the expiry of this period of five years, the new Government wanted to appoint men of their party in place of the petitioners, the Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan wrote D. O. letters for taking resignation from them, when they did not tender their resignations and the order Annexure 5 was passed revoking the earlier order dated August 4, 1988 (Annexure 1) establishing the district forums. He further contended that it was a colourable exercise of power and fraud has been perpetuated. He also contended that the Central Government has not given prior approval for the reconstitution of the District Forum, Jodhpur as required under Sec.9 (a) of the Act, as such the new District Forum, Jodhpur established by order dated November 26, 1990 (Annexure R/6) is not legal and valid and the orders dated November 29, 1990 (Annexure R/7 and R/8) appointing respondents No.2 and 3 as its members are also void and ineffective. He relied upon State of Bihar V/s. DM Ganguly and Others, 1958 AIR(SC) 1018 and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India, 1986 AIR(SC) 872.

(3.) In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that stay order dated November 26,1990 stood vacated on the expiry of two weeks of the filing of the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India. They further contended that by order dated August 4, 1988 (Annexure 1) only six district forums were established in the State of Rajasthan, by its order dated January 17, 1990 (Annexure R/1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the State Government for establishing district forums in ail the districts of Rajasthan, in compliance thereof, the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the department of Food and Civil Supplies wrote D. O. Letter No. F.39 (2)/fs/ CP/87 dated April 17, 1990 to the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Department of Civil Supplies, New Delhi for conveying the prior approval of the Central Government for reconstituting the existing six district forums and creating 21 new district forums in the State of Rajasthan, the Government of India communicated their concurrence to the said proposals vide wireless message dated May 11, 1990 (Annexure R/2), thereafter, the said six district forums were abolished vide notification dated November 26, 1990 (Annexure R/4 and R/5) and 27 new district forums were established by issuing similar notifications on November 26,1990, Notification Annexure R/6 is in respect of New District Forum, Jodhpur and letter dated November 26, 1990 (Annexure R/3) was addressed to the Presidents of the erstwhile six district forums intimating the reconstitution of the existing six district forums and establishment of 23 new district forums and for taking necessary action in this direction. They further contended that the State Government was fully competent under Sections 14, 17 and 21 of the General Clauses Act to rescind the previous notification dated August 4, 1988 (Annexure 1) abolishing six district forums, to issue fresh notifications reconstituting six district forms and establishing 17 new district forums and to appoint members of the newly established district forums including the respondents No.2 and 3 for the reconstituted District Forum, Jodhpur. They also contended that if the territorial jurisdiction of the old District Forums would have simply been diminished, notification dated September 7, 1988 (Annexure 2) conferring jurisdiction over several districts, would have been only amended and in fact the old six district forums had been abolished and in their place 23 new district forums have been established. They further contended that the petitioner No.2 has not filed any affidavit in support of her writ petition and on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, placing reliance on The Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others V/s. The Union of India and Another, 1955 2 SCR 517. They also contended that the petitioner No.1 is simply an Advocate, he is not a person of eminence in the field of either education or trade or commerce as required under Sec.10 (1) (b) of the Act, as such his appointment as a Member of the District Forum is void ab initio, the affidavit filed by him in compliance with the order of this Court dated July 11, 1991 is simply a 'self Praise Document', it has duly been controverted by the affidavit of respondent No.2, there is no material in support of it and if the petitioner No.1 would have been a person of eminence in the field of education, he would have filed many documents in support thereof.