Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed in public interest by the petitioners for quashing the notifications issued vide Annexures-B, C and D in the Official Gazettes by Respondent No.3 under Section 10(1-A) and 10(1-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inviting applications to fill up the posts of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and the members, of Kolar, Bidar, Hassan and Kodagu districts and also seeking mandamus directing the State Government-Respondent No.1 to frame necessary Rules by exercise of powers under Section 30(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that necessary Rules are to be framed to lay down the procedure for inviting applications including the procedure regarding wide publication of the notification by different methods. The petitioners further seek framing of Rules for fixing the remuneration of the members. 2. The petitioners contend that in respect of the Consumer Forums of the above said districts, applications have been invited, but the notifications calling for applications have not been published in two daily newspapers widely circulated in the respective areas. The said lapse is said to have caused lack of information to all the eligible persons to apply for the post. Therefore, they seek certiorari quashing the notifications issued calling for the applications vide Annexures-B, C and D. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed objection statement submitting in para 3 that publication in the newspapers is valid and necessary. Further, traversing the allegations made by respondent No.3, it is contended that there has been no failure on the part of the Government in providing budget for newspaper publication of the notifications calling for applications. In para 8, it is stated that the prayer in the writ petitions to set aside the notifications at Annexures-B, C and D be granted and suitable directions be given for issuing fresh notifications inviting applications. 4. Respondent No.3 in the objection statement contends that Rule 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Act does not mandatorily insist publication of notification in the leading newspapers in India or by other means. The guidelines framed by the State Forum vide Annexure-R.1 lays down the procedure consistent with the consensus arrived at in the meeting held on 17.08.2005 at New Delhi convened by the President of the National Consumer Forum and the Presidents of the State forums in India. The guidelines framed by the State Forum vide Annexure-R.1 lays down the procedure consistent with the consensus arrived at in the meeting held on 17.08.2005 at New Delhi convened by the President of the National Consumer Forum and the Presidents of the State forums in India. In the said guidelines at Annexure-R.1, it is stated that in two leading newspapers in Karnataka or in Karnataka Gazette or as may be decided by the Chairman of the Selection Committee, the publication of the notification is to be taken out. In the present case, it is stated that the notifications are widely circulated to all the Bar Associations all over the Karnataka, in all the District Consumer Forums in Karnataka, in all the District Courts of Karnataka, on the Notice Board of the State Commission and on the State Commission Website and also the information of the notifications are sent to Public Information Department and to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka. The wide circulation of the notifications to different authorities, different places and in the website is said to be a sufficient publication of the notifications to the notice of the aspiring eligible candidates to apply for the posts. It is stated that the contention that there has been no publication of the notifications and lack of publication disabled the petitioners to apply for the post is untenable. 5. Sri C.M. Nagabhushana, counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the publication in the newspapers is very much essential. The Gazette publication, although is a sufficient technical proof of valid publication of the notifications, the Gazette is not accessible and available to the general public. Therefore, by way of abundant caution, it was necessary that the notifications should have been published in newspapers circulated in Karnataka. 6. Respondent No.3 has taken a stand that for publication in the newspapers, a request was made to the Government, but funds were not provided for taking out publication. The said submission is stoutly opposed by the learned Advocate General. 7. Heard the learned Advocate General, counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State Commission in extenso and perused the material facts and the documents. 8. The said submission is stoutly opposed by the learned Advocate General. 7. Heard the learned Advocate General, counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State Commission in extenso and perused the material facts and the documents. 8. The contention that the notifications calling for applications to the posts of President are mandatorily to be published in the two daily newspapers circulated in Karnataka and failure to do so would vitiate the notifications appears to be an untenable contention. The provisions of Rule 12-A and the guidelines framed by the State Commission at Annexure R.1 stipulate that publication in two newspapers is only an alternate mode of communication. The notifications issued calling for applications produced at Annexures-B, C and D along with the notification at Annexure-D disclose that the notifications issued calling for applications to fill up the posts of President of the above and District Forums have been circulated to the following officers: “To Compiler, Karnataka Gazette, Bangalore with hard and soft copy for the purpose of publication of this publication urgently in the Karnataka Gazette and it is requested to send two printed copies of the Gazette to the State Commission for information and record. Copy to: 1. Principal Secretary to Government, Food & Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-560 001. 2. Secretary to Government, Justice, Law & Human Rights Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 3. Chairman, District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (to all the District Forums) for taking necessary action to display in the Notice Board of the concerned District Forum and also in the Notice Board of the District Court and in the Notice Board of the District Bar Association. 4. Principal District Judge (all Districts) – to bring to the kind notice of the concerned Presiding Officers. 5. Notice Board of the State Commission. 6. Website of the State Commission. 7. Office copy. 8. Director, Information and Broadcasting Department, Shivajinagar Bus Stand, Bangalore for the purpose of publishing the brief publication enclosed along with this publication for publishing in all the daily newspapers free of cost.” 9. The notifications, apart from being sent to Bar Associations, District Courts, State Consumer Forums, Director of Information and Broadcasting Department, have also been displayed on the website of the State Commission, which serve as a sufficient and adequate publication of the notifications to the persons aspiring to apply for the posts. The notifications, apart from being sent to Bar Associations, District Courts, State Consumer Forums, Director of Information and Broadcasting Department, have also been displayed on the website of the State Commission, which serve as a sufficient and adequate publication of the notifications to the persons aspiring to apply for the posts. There is no rule which prescribes mandatory publication of the notifications in the newspapers. Therefore, it is untenable for the petitioners to contend that failure of publication in the newspapers has resulted in lack of wide publicity to give an opportunity to eligible persons to apply for the posts. 10. In the writ petitions, a mandamus is sought for to frame rules to lay down the procedure for publication of the notifications calling for applications and also to fix remuneration of the members. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR vs A.R.ZAKKI AND OTHERS ( AIR 1992 SC 1546 ), the mandamus sought for cannot be issued. In that view, the writ petitions are dismissed.