Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 677 (ALL)

GANESH PRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-04-02

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) of Kanpur under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) on 4 March 2011 for a period of five years or until the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner attained the age of sixty years on 31 December 2014, following which his term came to an end. These proceedings were initiated on 17 December 2014 for seeking a declaration that Section 10 (2) of the Act is ultra vires and for a mandamus determining the maximum age for a member of the District Forum to hold office until the age of seventy. The petitioner incidentally has also challenged the provisions for the tenure and the age of retirement of members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) under Section 16 (3) and has similarly sought a mandamus for continuance until the age of seventy. 2. Section 10 (1) of the Act provides for the composition of the District Forum and, insofar as is material, provides as follows: “10. Composition of the District Forum.—(1) 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, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely : (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age, (ii) possess a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university, (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:” 3. Section 10(2) provides that every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or until the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. However, a member would be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or until the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. The provisions in regard to the State Commission are contained in Section 16. Section 16 (1), insofar as is material, provides as follows: “16. However, a member would be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or until the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. The provisions in regard to the State Commission are contained in Section 16. Section 16 (1), insofar as is material, provides as follows: “16. Composition of the State Commission.—(1) Each State Commission shall consist of - (a) a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President; Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court; (b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely : (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age; (ii) possess a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university; and (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration: Provided that not more than fifty percent of the members shall be from amongst persons having a judicial background.” 4. Under Section 16(3), every member of the State Commission holds office for a term of five years or until the age of sixty seven years, whichever is earlier but a member is eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or until the age of sixty seven years, whichever is earlier. The composition of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) is governed by Section 20 which, inter alia, provides as follows: “20. Composition of the National Commission.—(1) The National Commission shall consist of- (a) a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, to be appointed by the Central Government, who shall be its President; Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Composition of the National Commission.—(1) The National Commission shall consist of- (a) a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, to be appointed by the Central Government, who shall be its President; Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (b) not less than four, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely : (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age; (ii) possess a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university; and (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration: Provided that not more than fifty percent of the members shall be from amongst the persons having a judicial background.” 5. Section 20(3) provides that every member of the National Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or until the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier, but a member is eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or until the age of seventy, whichever is earlier. 6. The Presiding Officer of the District Forum is a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge. The Presiding Officer of the State Commission is a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court. The Presiding Officer of the National Commission is a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. Having due regard to the fact that District Judges are to be Presiding Officers of the District Fora, the maximum age for the Presiding Officer has been fixed as sixty-five. Correspondingly, the maximum age in respect of the State Commission is sixty-seven since the Presiding Officer of the State Commission is a Judge of the High Court who would retire from the High Court at sixty-two. Corresponding provisions have been made in respect of the members of the National Commission in Section 20. 7. Correspondingly, the maximum age in respect of the State Commission is sixty-seven since the Presiding Officer of the State Commission is a Judge of the High Court who would retire from the High Court at sixty-two. Corresponding provisions have been made in respect of the members of the National Commission in Section 20. 7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the qualifications for membership of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission are similar and, hence, there is no justification to make a distinction in the age of retirement for the members of those bodies. The petitioner seeks a mandamus of this Court that all members of the District Fora should retire at the age of seventy. 8. A mandamus cannot be issued by the High Court directing Parliament or a legislating body to frame law in a particular way. Consequently, it would not be open to the Court to mandate that a member of the District Fora under the Act or, for that matter, of any other judicial body, should retire on the attainment of a particular age of superannuation. This is clearly a matter of legislative policy. The issue before the Court is really narrower as to whether there is any discrimination, which is violative of Article 14, in the provisions of Section 10 when compared to those of Section 20. The Act contemplates that the District Fora be presided over by a District Judge or by a person who is qualified to be a District Judge. The corresponding provisions of Section 16 for the State Commission require the President to be a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court and of Section 20, a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. In the case of the appointment of the President of the State Commission, consultation is required with the Chief Justice of the High Court, whereas in the case of the President of the National Commission, consultation is required with the Chief Justice of India. In making provisions for the age of superannuation of the members of the District Forum, Parliament was entitled to make such provisions as would dovetail with the provision made in regard to the Presiding Officer of the District Forum. In making provisions for the age of superannuation of the members of the District Forum, Parliament was entitled to make such provisions as would dovetail with the provision made in regard to the Presiding Officer of the District Forum. Sixty-five years has been fixed uniformly for all the members of the District Fora or a term of five years, whichever is earlier, having due regard to the fact that a District Judge would demit office from the State judicial service at the age of sixty. Parliament, in its legislative wisdom, is entitled to make a distinction between the age of superannuation and the term of office for the members of Tribunals within a hierarchy of Tribunals. Again, whether such a distinction should be made or whether there should be uniformity of all conditions of service, is a matter of legislative policy and prescription. The High Court cannot hold that fixing the term of the members of the District Fora as five years or until a member attains the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier, is discriminatory or is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Though, in a broad sense, the members of the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission discharge judicial functions, the nature of their responsibilities varies. The jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 11, the jurisdiction of the State Commission under Section 17 and the jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21 are different. The pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the District Fora in Section 11 is where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. The corresponding provision for the State Commission in Section 17 is between rupees twenty lakhs and rupees one crore, whereas that of the National Commission in Section 21 is where the claim exceeds rupees one crore. Moreover, the State Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction over the District Forum, whereas the National Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction over the State Commission. These are all matters which are in the realm of policy for the legislative body in considering as to whether there should be a uniform age of retirement for all members of the District Fora at par with what has been prescribed for the National Commission or otherwise, whether there should be a distinction. These are all matters which are in the realm of policy for the legislative body in considering as to whether there should be a uniform age of retirement for all members of the District Fora at par with what has been prescribed for the National Commission or otherwise, whether there should be a distinction. We find no ground to hold that the provision is ultra vires or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. For these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————