Judgment : A. P. SHAH, C.J. These writ petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the orders of this Court dated 19.4.2007 and 13.7.2007 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of T. Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 14248 of 1999 and W.P. No. 11680 of 2006 and of M. Radhakrishnan party in person in W.P. No. 15401 of 1999 and of C. Lakshmi Narain party in person in W.P. No. 15364 of 1999 and of G. Masilamani, Learned Advocate General on behalf of the Government in all the writ petitions and of Anbumani counsel appearing for the State Consumer Forum and of Vasu Venkat, Advocate for R4 in W.P. No. 11680 of 2006 this Court made the following order: (The Order of the Court was made by Hon‘ble The Chief Justice) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri G. Masilamani, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government and Shri Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the State Consumer Forum. 2. This Court by order dated 19.4.2007 issued directions inter alia in respect of appointment of Presidents and Members of the District Fora and certain other matters, with a further direction to the Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department to file an Action Taken Report within a period of ten weeks from the date of the order. The relevant directions are reproduced below: “ a) The respondents are directed to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee and make the necessary appointments to the vacancies of four members in the District Fora and one Lady Member in the State Commission within a period of eight weeks from today; b) As to the appointment of Presidents to the District Fora, there are four vacancies to be filled up. It seems that three retired District Judges have expressed their willingness to be appointed as Presidents and they can be immediately considered for appointment. As regards the appointment to the fourth vacancy, the President, State Commission can explore the possibility of filling up the said vacancy by a legally qualified person, preferably a retired District Judge; c) The respondents are directed to ensure that anticipated vacancies are filled up without giving rise to any disruption in the functioning of the Consumer Fora. As regards the appointment to the fourth vacancy, the President, State Commission can explore the possibility of filling up the said vacancy by a legally qualified person, preferably a retired District Judge; c) The respondents are directed to ensure that anticipated vacancies are filled up without giving rise to any disruption in the functioning of the Consumer Fora. Advertisements may be given at least six months in advance for filling up the anticipated vacancies. 3. By order dated 13.7.2007, this Court issued further directions as follows: “ b) In respect of filling up of four posts of Presidents to the District Fora, the report states that the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 28.6.2007, has selected four retired District Judges and orders will be issued by the Government shortly. Considering the above said compliance report, the State Government is directed to complete the process of appointment of four posts of Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, within a period of two weeks from today. c) In respect of anticipated vacancies, the previous order of this Court dated 19.4.2007, namely, “The respondents are directed to ensure that anticipated vacancies are filled up without giving rise to any disruption in the functioning of the Consumer Fora. Advertisements may be given at least six months in advance for filling up the anticipated vacancies” shall continue to be followed.” 4. We are informed that, as on date, there are 8 vacancies or the posts of President in the District Fora, and there will be 6 more vacancies for the posts of President in the District Fora by the end of July, 2008. It appears that some of the vacancies are more than a period of two years, while some for more than one year. In spite of the categorical directions issued by this Court on 19.4.2007 and 13.7.2007, the State Government is yet to take steps to fill up the vacancies to the posts or presidents in the District Fora. At this stage, it is required to be stated that on 12.6.2007, the Selection Committee recommended three transfers, posting experienced Presidents who show disposal to heavy centers such as, Madurai, Chennai-North and the combined Forum of Chengalpattu and Villupuram, so that the new appointees could be posted in the vacancies thus created. At this stage, it is required to be stated that on 12.6.2007, the Selection Committee recommended three transfers, posting experienced Presidents who show disposal to heavy centers such as, Madurai, Chennai-North and the combined Forum of Chengalpattu and Villupuram, so that the new appointees could be posted in the vacancies thus created. On 28.6.2007, the Committee recommended four retired District Judges for appointment as Presidents in Thanjavur (subject to implementation of the transfer proposals already sent), Tirunelveli and Tuticorin combined Forum), Dindigul and Pudukottai (combined Forum) and Erode. This Court vide order dated 13.6.2007 directed the State Government to complete the process of appointment of these four posts of Presidents within a period of one week. On 13.8.2007, after more than one and half months, the Government issued appointment orders vide G.O. (Ms.) No. 257 dated 13,08.2007, which were not in accordance with the recommendations made on 12.6.2007 with the result the heavy centers continued to remain vacant. In the meanwhile, one of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, viz., Thiru A. Thanikasalam, opted to join the High Court Service as Additional Master while another Thiru R. Munirathinam chose to join City Civil Court as Additional Judge. It appears that the State Commission made repeated requests to the Government to cancel the G.O and issue a fresh G.O. A letter in RC. No. A-1/140-2004, dated 3.10.2007 was also sent with a request to revise the G.O to be in conformity with the recommendation made by the Committee. By communication dated 31.10.2007, the Government has informed the State Commission that the G.O cannot be revised, but no detailed reasons have been given. In the status report filed on behalf of the State Government, it is stated that the Commissions insistence to appoint serving or retired Judges as Presidents of the District Fora, as per the directives of the National Commission, is not justified, and the vacancies to the posts of Presidents are liable to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(1-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act‘) by inviting application from retired Judges, as well as advocates. 5. 5. We may mention that the Minister for Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Government of India, has addressed a letter dated 9.6.2006 to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu wherein it has been observed that the serving District Judges, since they come under the control of the High Courts, are more accountable and committed to effective timely disposal of consumer grievance, and therefore, as far as possible the State Government may appoint only serving District Judges to the posts of Presidents in the District Fora. In the light of the aforesaid letter of the Minister for Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Government of India, the State Commission addressed a letter to the High Court seeking its views for appointing serving District Judges as Presidents of the District Fora on service lent basis for a minimum period of three years by the Government in the present and arising vacancies in the District Fora. The High Court videits communication dated 29.12.2006 accepted the proposal in principle, provided the cadre strength of the District Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service is increased by 24. During the course of hearing of this matter, on various occasions, we suggested to the Government to increase the number of District Judges to the required strength, so as to enable the High Court to sent on deputation the District Judges to act as Presidents of the District Fora. We are waiting for the State Governments response to the suggestion made by this Court. 6. In the meanwhile, the National Commission, New Delhi has addressed a letter dated 17.5.2007 to the Government of Tamil Nadu highlighting among other things the policy decision taken to the effect that the District Judges or retired District Judges alone will be considered for the appointment as Presidents of the District Forum. It was stated that as a matter of policy the appointment to the post of President of the District Fora be made only from amongst either sitting or retired District Judges whose honesty and integrity are beyond doubt. We may hasten to add that 8 eligible retired District Judges have expressed their willingness to be appointed as Presidents of the District Fora including Shri K. Rajagopal and Shri K. Venugopal, whose names were recommended by the Committee vide letter dated 28.6.2007. 7. We may hasten to add that 8 eligible retired District Judges have expressed their willingness to be appointed as Presidents of the District Fora including Shri K. Rajagopal and Shri K. Venugopal, whose names were recommended by the Committee vide letter dated 28.6.2007. 7. Learned Advocate General, however, submitted that under Section 10(1-A) of the Act, a retired or serving District Judge or a person who is qualified to be a District Judge is eligible to be appointed as a President of the District Forum. Therefore, it is not permissible to give any precedence, particularly to the retired District Judges and in practice, there would not be any distinction between the retired District Judge and an advocate. According to him, a letter of the National Commission is only of recommendatory nature and it has no binding effect and in any event such a recommendation would be contrary to the expression provision of Section 10(1-A) of the Act. 8. Shri Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the State Commission, on the other hand, submitted that as the persons appointed are expected to function judicially consistent with the procedures as laid down under the Act or the rules framed there under, there is a need to insulate them from the control of, or interference by the executive and that purpose is sought to be achieved by sub-section (1-A) of Section 10 as also by Section 24-B of the Act. Shri Anbumani submitted that Section 24-B of the Act confers administrative control over the State Commissions and District Fora and the directions issued by the National Commission would bind all concerned. Shri Anbumani also pointed out that this Court vide orders dated 19.4.2007 and 13.7.2007 has categorically directed to fill up the vacancies to the posts of Presidents in the District Fora by appointing retired Judges and as those orders have not been challenged by the State Government, the same had attained finality. He submitted that the directions issued by the National Commission vide letter dated 17.5.2007 are followed by the State Commissions of almost all the other States where as a matter of fact, preference is given to serving and retired District Judges for appointment to the posts of President and in the absence of serving and retired Judges, the posts are being filled up from amongst the advocates. 9. 9. It is obvious that the National Commissions directive contained in letter dated 17.5.2007 was issued under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act. In State of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki AIR 2003 SC 3849 : (2003) 7 SCC 403 : (2004) 1 MLJ 6, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 24-B of the Act and held that the said Section spells out administrative control in favour of the National Commission over all the State Commissions and District Fora and such directions are equally binding on the State Government. R.C. LAHOTI, J., (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed as follows: “It cannot be lost sight of that the National Commission, State Commissions and District Fora have all been constituted to exercise jurisdiction over such grievances of the aggrieved persons which were earlier available to be raised before the conventional Courts established under the Constitution and/or the laws. Inasmuch as the persons appointed to discharge functions under the Act at whatever level exercise judicial powers and are expected to function judicially consistently with the procedure as laid down by the Act or the rules framed thereunder, the very nature of the functions discharged by them needs them to be insulated from the control of, or interference by the executive. So far as the District Fora are concerned, the purpose is sought to be achieved by sub-section (1-A) of Section 10 as also by Section 24-B of the Act. Every appointment under subsection (1) of Section 10, though made by the State Government, is dependent on the recommendation of a Selection Committee which is headed by the President of the State Commission who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court. The administrative control over all the District Fora within the State has been vested in the State Commission in all the matters contemplated by Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 24-B. The power conferred on the National Commission by Clause (iii) of sub-section (1), exercisable by the National Commission over the State Commissions and District Fora, read mutatis mutandisconfers the same power on the State Commission qua District Fora within the State by virtue of sub-section (2). Keeping in view the purpose sought to be achieved by these provisions, Section 24-B has to be so construed as to spell out administrative control in favour of the National Commission over all the State Commissions and District Fora and in favour of the State Commission over all the District Fora within its jurisdiction, whenever there is any doubt. In other words, Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) abovesaid have to be liberally and widely interpreted.” 10. In our opinion, the directive issued by the National Commission under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of Section 10(1 -A) of the Consumer Protection Act. All that the directive says is that precedence should be given to the District Judges or retired District Judges having regard to the experience gained by them in discharge of their duties as judicial officer. If serving or retired District Judges are not available, it is always open to the Committee to make appointments from amongst advocates, and it is not correct to say that the advocates are excluded from consideration for the post of President of the District Fora. In our opinion, the National Commission has issued this directive keeping in view the purpose sought to be achieved by enactment of Section 10 (1-A) and in the interest of better administration of the District Fora. 11. Coming then to the order or the State Government dated 13.08.2007, it is required to be noted that the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki ( supra) has categorically held that the appointment by transfer is also governed by Section 10 (1-A) of the Consumer Protection Act as power to appoint includes the power to revoke an appointment and also includes a power to make an appointment by transfer subject to satisfying the requirements of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Government was legally bound to implement the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for transfer of experienced Presidents at heavy centers. The appointment order issued by the state Government vide G.O. (Ms.) No.257 dated 13.8.2007, which is contrary to the recommendation of the Selection Committee is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 12. The State Government was legally bound to implement the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for transfer of experienced Presidents at heavy centers. The appointment order issued by the state Government vide G.O. (Ms.) No.257 dated 13.8.2007, which is contrary to the recommendation of the Selection Committee is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 12. In the result, in view of the foregoing discussions, we make the following order: (i) The G.O. (Ms.) No. 257 dated 13.8.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and the State Government is directed to issue a fresh G.O. giving effect to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee on 12.6.2007 regarding transfer and posting of the experienced Presidents to Madurai, Chennai North and the combined forums of Chengalpattu and Villupurm. (ii) The State Commission is directed to issue an advertisement for the filling up of existing eight vacancies as well as ensuing six vacancies i. e., in all 14 vacancies for the post of Presidents, District Fora, inviting applications from retired District Judges and qualified advocates, within two weeks from today. After receipt of the applications from the eligible candidates in pursuance of the advertisement the Selection Committee is to consider those applications and make appropriate recommendations to the state Government in consonance with the policy decision taken by the National Commission vide its letter dated 17.5.2007 within six weeks. The State Government is directed to give effect to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee within two weeks from the receipt of the recommendations. 12. Adjourned to 16.4.2008.