JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent not to terminate the petitioner from the post of Member, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, appointed as per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 11.12.2013. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [for short, CDRF], Kottayam from 18.12.2013 against the vacancy of one Bindu M. Thomas, whose tenure expired on 07.02.2013. The tenure of appointment of the petitioner is for a period of five years from the date he assumes charge. Prior to the present appointment, he served as a member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kottayam for a period from 22.09.2008 to 20.09.2013. Prior to that, petitioner was appointed as a member of CDRF, Ernakulam for the period from 2002 to 2007. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that, he is likely to be terminated by stating that he is holding the office for a third term. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the reasons stated by the respondent are not maintainable, since as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, every member of a District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier. The proviso to the sub-section states that, “a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.” However, without adverting properly to the attendant provisions of law, petitioner is about to be terminated. In order to substantiate the apprehension, petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 paper publications in that regard. 3. Respondent has filed a statement, primarily contending that there is no notice issued for removing the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition is premature. The nature of appointment of the petitioner to various fora stands admitted. In order to substantiate the apprehension, petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 paper publications in that regard. 3. Respondent has filed a statement, primarily contending that there is no notice issued for removing the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition is premature. The nature of appointment of the petitioner to various fora stands admitted. However, it is contended that, as per Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it stood originally, reads that “every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment.” Subsequently, Section 10(2) was amended and as per the proviso thereto, a member shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that, he fulfills the qualification and other conditions for appointment mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such reappointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 4. Thus, after the amendment, a person who is already appointed as a Member of the District Forum can be reappointed for another term of five years, if such reappointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In the present case, petitioner was originally appointed as Member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam for the period from 20.05.2002 to 19.05.2007. In view of the amended provision of Section 10(2), he was eligible for reappointment for another period of five years, if he was recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner was again re-appointed as recommended by the Selection Committee for another period of five years as Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam from 22.09.2008 to 20.09.2013, as can be seen from Ext.P2. According to the respondent, as the provisions of law stands now, petitioner cannot be again re-appointed for a third term of five years, and therefore, the appointment presently made with effect from 11.12.2013 as per Ext.P1 is ab-initio void and hence bad. Since this was noticed by the Consumer Affairs Department, the legality of appointment of the petitioner was referred to the Law Secretary. Since this was noticed by the Consumer Affairs Department, the legality of appointment of the petitioner was referred to the Law Secretary. The Law Secretary is also of the opinion that, the appointment of the petitioner is bad in view of the proviso to Section 10(2) and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Samuel, 1995 KHC 335. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 6. Apparently, the issue revolves around Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the first proviso thereto, which read thus: “10. Composition of the District Forum. (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier: Provided that a member shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfills the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 7. Section 10 deals with composition of the District Forum and its qualifications. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 2(11) of Act, 1986, “member” includes the President and a member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be. Therefore, petitioner was not a member of the District Forum when he was appointed as per Ext.P1. It is also contended that, the period of the petitioner as a member for the second term at the District Consumer Forum Kottayam was from 22.09.2008 to 20.09.2013. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, petitioner was appointed as a member of the Forum not as per the privilege conferred under the proviso to Section 10(2), but on the basis of the fresh application invited by the State Government. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Ext.P1, which is dated 11.12.2013, in which the petitioner was appointed against the vacancy of one Bindhu M. Thomas, whose tenure expired on 7th February, 2013. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Ext.P1, which is dated 11.12.2013, in which the petitioner was appointed against the vacancy of one Bindhu M. Thomas, whose tenure expired on 7th February, 2013. The tenure of the petitioner was over on 20.09.2013. In my considered opinion, the term used in sub-section (2) of Section 10 is member of the District Forum. The privilege conferred under the 1st proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of Act, 1986 is also to a member eligible for re-appointment. Therefore, merely because the proviso grants a privilege to an existing member of the Forum eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years, a qualified person is not prohibited from applying for the post when it is invited. 9. However, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the intention behind the legislation is to be looked upon, and from the proviso, it is clear that, a member who has occupied the post as a member for two terms is not eligible for re-appointment. In my considered view, the expression “member” used in the Act is very clear to contemplate a situation that a person who is continuing as a member is eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years. That is a privilege granted to an existing member. But, that will not in any manner prevent or prohibit a qualified person to seek appointment to the post of a member of a District Forum. 'Member' is defined under the Black's Law Dictionary [Ninth Edition] as, “one of the individuals of whom an organization or a deliberate assembly consists, and who enjoys the full rights of participating in the organization including the rights of making, debating, and voting on motions-except to the extent that the organization reserves those rights to certain classes of membership”. The definition makes it amply clear that member means a person in occupation of a post. Therefore, the privilege granted under the law can never be treated as a prohibition for a qualified person to apply for the post of the Member, District Forum. Learned Additional Advocate General could not point out any prohibition created under the statute for a qualified person to apply for the post of a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Therefore, the privilege granted under the law can never be treated as a prohibition for a qualified person to apply for the post of the Member, District Forum. Learned Additional Advocate General could not point out any prohibition created under the statute for a qualified person to apply for the post of a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Ext.P1 produced by the petitioner makes it clear, petitioner was not a member of the District Forum when he was appointed as per Ext.P1. Therefore, it can only be legally presumed that petitioner was appointed on the basis of the selection made consequent to the application submitted by the petitioner. As I have pointed out earlier, the privilege granted to an existing member cannot meddle or interferes with the right of a third person to apply for a post, since there is no prohibition created under the statute for making any such application. 10. The proviso added to Section 10(2) is in the affirmative sense, enabling a member to have a second term as a member of the District Forum. Whereas, Section 10(2) as it stood before the amendment was in the negative sense, by which, a member of the District Forum is entitled to hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for reappointment. Which thus means, prior to the amendment, a member did not have a privilege for a reappointment. It also did not bar a prior member applying for a post, when notification is invited or selection is made by the State Government in accordance with the recommendation as per sub-section (1A) of Section 10. 11. However, learned Additional Advocate General heavily relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Samuel (supra) to canvass for the proposition that, a person who has enjoyed the privilege as a member of the District Forum for the second time is not at all entitled in future to seek a fresh appointment to the post of member in the District Forum. In my considered opinion, the question that was considered in Samuel (supra) was whether the term of a member or a President, if he is shifted or transferred to another District Forum, can be extended for a fresh period of five years. 12. In my considered opinion, the question that was considered in Samuel (supra) was whether the term of a member or a President, if he is shifted or transferred to another District Forum, can be extended for a fresh period of five years. 12. As is noticeable, in my considered opinion, the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment has no bearing to the issue on hand, at all. There the consideration was whether a member transferred from one District Forum to another District Forum is entitled for a fresh period of five years on transfer/shifting. Accordingly the Division Bench of this Court held that the appointment is only for a period of five years whether he continues in the very same Forum or is shifted to a different Forum, taking note of the fact that the tenure of a member of the Forum is fixed for a period of five years. Furthermore, it is convincingly clear that, the issue therein was in respect of a 'member', occupying the post, whereas, in the case on hand, petitioner was not a member while being appointed as per Ext.P1. 13. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition, especially due to the fact that, from the statement filed by the respondent, it is clear that, the Law Secretary has given advice on the appointment of the petitioner presently made as per Ext.P1, not in accordance with law, and there is every likelihood that the petitioner will be terminated from the post. Consequentially, there will be a direction not to terminate the petitioner from the post, Member, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, till the expiry of the term as per Ext.P1. 14. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.