Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Suhas Milind Untwale, was appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Buldana on 06.02.2013. Upon completion of her five-year tenure, she applied for re-appointment on 17.10.2017. After a viva-voce examination under the Model Rules, 2012, she was re-appointed on 05.02.2018, with tenure until 10.02.2023. However, due to orders in Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 (Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe v. Union of India), her tenure was extended to 01.03.2023. She demitted office on that date. In the PIL, the constitutional validity of Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 was challenged. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court declared these rules arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on 30.07.2021. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court in Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, which dismissed the appeals on 03.03.2023, upholding the High Court's decision. The petitioner then filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider her application for re-appointment. The court held that since the Rules of 2020 were struck down, the respondent must consider the petitioner's application under the pre-existing Model Rules, 2012. The court directed the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as pending and decide it within four weeks, in accordance with the Model Rules, 2012, as if the Rules of 2020 had not been enacted. The petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Rules - Article 14 - Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 were declared arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe v. Union of India. The Supreme Court upheld this declaration in Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye. (Paras 3-4) B) Consumer Law - Re-appointment - Legitimate Expectation - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The petitioner, who was re-appointed under the Model Rules, 2012, had a legitimate expectation to be considered for re-appointment under the same rules. Since the Rules of 2020 were struck down, the respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application for re-appointment in accordance with the Model Rules, 2012, as if the Rules of 2020 had not been enacted. (Paras 5-6) C) Consumer Law - Tenure Extension - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The petitioner's tenure was extended till 01.03.2023 pursuant to orders in PIL No. 11 of 2021. The court held that the expiry of tenure does not bar consideration for re-appointment, especially when the rules governing re-appointment have been declared unconstitutional. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, whose tenure as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expired on 01.03.2023, is entitled to be considered for re-appointment in light of the declaration that Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 are unconstitutional.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for re-appointment as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in accordance with the Model Rules, 2012, as if the Rules of 2020 had not been enacted. The decision shall be taken within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Re-appointment
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
- Rules of 2020
- Unconstitutional Rules
- Article 14
- Legitimate Expectation
- Model Rules
- 2012
- Tenure Extension
