Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2078 (ALL)

Jitendra Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2024-09-18

MANJIVE SHUKLA, SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated March 1, 2023 bearing No.118/84-2-2023 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the subsequent communication dated March 14, 2023 with regard to cancellation of selection of the petitioner as Member of the District Consumer Commission. 3. It is to be noted that the petitioner was selected as a Member of the District Consumer Commission along with 13 other persons. By the impugned order dated March 1, 2023, his selection has been cancelled under Rule 5(5) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Rule 5 of the Rules is extracted below:- “5. Disqualification for appointment of President or member of State Commission and District Commission – A person shall be disqualified as the President or a member of a State Commission or District Commission if he- (1) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which involves moral turpitude; or (2) has been adjudged to be insolvent; or (3) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent authority; or (4) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the State Government or Central Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by such Government; or (5) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest as is likely to prejudicially affect his functions as the President or a member.” 4. In the counter affidavit, the ground for cancellation of the selection of the petitioner is that the petitioner was an office bearer of a political party, and therefore, his working as a Member of the District Consumer Commission would be prejudiced. It is to be noted that in the impugned order, no reason whatsoever was provided and this explanation has been provided only in the counter affidavit. Supplanting of reason by way of a counter affidavit cannot be a substitute for having providing reasons in the main order itself. (see: Mohinder Singh Gill & another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 ). 5. Supplanting of reason by way of a counter affidavit cannot be a substitute for having providing reasons in the main order itself. (see: Mohinder Singh Gill & another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 ). 5. In any event, we find that the reason provided in the counter affidavit is flimsy and does not fall in any of the clauses for disqualification as prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioner has himself informed to this Court that if he was appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Commission, he would have given resignation from the post that he was holding. Under such circumstances, we find that the impugned order is without any merit and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 1, 2023 and subsequent communication dated March 14, 2023 are quashed and set-aside. In the event, there is any vacancy of the post of Member of the District Consumer Commission, the petitioner should be appointed within eight weeks from date. 7. The writ petition is allowed.