Case Note & Summary
These two petitions challenged the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020, framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 was filed by an advocate seeking to strike down Rule 6(9) of the Rules 2020, which allowed the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure for making recommendations, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner alternatively sought to read down the rule to require a written test and viva voce for candidates. Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021 challenged the entire Rules 2020 as illegal, ultra vires, and in violation of directions issued by the Supreme Court in State of UP v. UP Consumer Protection Bar Association and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India. The petitioner in the writ petition also sought quashing of the vacancy notice dated 02.02.2021. The State of Maharashtra had constituted a Selection Committee and invited applications for posts of President and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. On 30 June 2021, the court made the selection process subject to the final outcome of these petitions. The petitioners argued that the rule conferred unguided discretion and that the selection process should include written tests and viva voce as per Supreme Court directions. The respondents likely defended the rules, though their arguments are not fully available in the extracted text. The court reserved judgment on 30 July 2021 and pronounced its decision on 14 September 2021. The exact final holding and directions are not provided in the provided text, but the court examined the challenge to the eligibility criteria and the procedure for appointment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrariness of Rule 6(9) - Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020, Rule 6(9) - The rule permitted the Selection Committee to determine its own procedure for making recommendations, which the petitioner alleged was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 - The court examined whether unguided discretion violated equality principles and whether the rule should be read down to mandate written test and viva voce (Paras 7, 10) B) Administrative Law - Ultra Vires - Validity of Rules 2020 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sections 29, 43, 101(2)(n), 101(2)(w) - The petitioner contended that the Rules 2020 were beyond the rule-making power and contrary to Supreme Court directions in State of UP v. UP Consumer Protection Bar Association and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India - The court considered the scope of delegated legislation and whether the rules exceeded statutory authority (Paras 3, 7) C) Consumer Protection - Appointment of Commission Members - Eligibility Criteria - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) - The rules prescribed minimum experience of 20 years for State Commission members and 15 years for District Commission president and members - The petitioner challenged these criteria as not analogous to the functions and powers of the Commissions - The court examined whether the criteria were reasonable (Paras 3, 4) D) Judicial Review - Selection Process - Written Test and Viva Voce - Supreme Court directions in State of UP v. UP Consumer Protection Bar Association - The petitioner sought a direction to conduct written test and viva voce before recommendations for appointment - The court considered whether such tests were mandatory as per Supreme Court directions (Paras 7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 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 the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14; whether the Rules 2020 are ultra vires the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; whether the selection procedure must include written test and viva voce as per Supreme Court directions
Law Points
- Greater power requires stricter appointment criteria
- principle of proportionality
- challenge under Article 14 for arbitrariness
- need for written test and viva voce for judicial appointments
- scope of delegated legislation under Consumer Protection Act 2019
