Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 562 (CAL)

Consumer Unity & Guidance Forum v. State

2001-08-31

ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2001
JUDGMENT This is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the petitioners have prayed that a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent and each of their agents men and servants and more particularly respondent No. 1 to revoke to rescind to cancel and/or to set aside the impugned Notification ICA 185(3)/2001 inviting applications only from the members of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service not exceeding 63 years as on 1.1.2001 should be quashed as it is discriminatory and it prohibits the other persons as per Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1993. 2. The petitioners are registered societies registered under the Society Registration Act to promote and fester a strong independent consumer movement and to strive for social Justice. The petitioners are not lawyers by profession. They are only a body which is a public spirited one aimed at supporting the consumer movement. 3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that as per Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 each District Forum shall consist of (a) a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President, (b) two other members, who shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing and have adequate knowledge or experience or, have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to economics law commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration one of whom shall be a woman. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the Notification dated January 12, 2001 published in the 'Statesman' where applications have been invited only from retired members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service who have not exceeded 63 years of age on 1.1.2001, for preparation of panel of candidates for appointment to the post of President in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. According to Section 10(a) any person who is qualified to be a District Judge is entitled to be appointed as President of the Consumer Forum. But, the State Government has only invited applications from the persons who are retired persons of the judicial service and has not closed age of 63 years and disallowed other persons like members of the Bar who have completed 7 years of practice and they are entitled to be considered for appointment as President of the Forum. 5. But, the State Government has only invited applications from the persons who are retired persons of the judicial service and has not closed age of 63 years and disallowed other persons like members of the Bar who have completed 7 years of practice and they are entitled to be considered for appointment as President of the Forum. 5. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that three classes of persons are eligible that is a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be the President of the Forum. This 'notification according to the learned Counsel is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this notification should be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is true that as per Section 10(a) (b) a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge, shall be its President. Two other members, shall be persons of ability, ,integrity and standing and having adequate knowledge or experience of, or who have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountary, industry public affairs or administration, one of whom shall be a woman. 7. Section 10 provides who is qualified to be appointed as President of the Forum. Three classes of persons are eligible i.e. a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge. Out of these the State Government had picked up only the one class of persons i.e. who has been the District Judge i.e. member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and has not attained 63 years is eligible for appointment. But other class or persons have been left out. What is frowned upon is pernicious discrimination. If the State Government wants to appoint persons only from one class out of the three class of persons then that cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the State Government to decide who will be better suited for the job and if in their wisdom they want to appoint a person who has long experience in judicial service as President of the Consumer Forum then no exception to such decision can be taken. It is open to the State Government to decide who will be better suited for the job and if in their wisdom they want to appoint a person who has long experience in judicial service as President of the Consumer Forum then no exception to such decision can be taken. The impugned notification is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.