Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three advocates, challenged a notification dated 23.04.2012 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Karnataka, calling for applications to fill the posts of President of District Consumer Redressal Forums in Kodagu, Kolar, Hassan, and Bidar districts. The petitioners had applied for various districts. The court found that the notification was issued without prior consultation with the High Court, which is mandatory under Section 10(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court quashed the notification and directed the respondents to issue a fresh notification after consulting the High Court. The decision was based on the statutory requirement and the need to ensure a fair and lawful selection process.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Appointment of President of District Consumer Forum - Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Mandatory Consultation with High Court - The notification dated 23.04.2012 issued by the State Government calling for applications to fill the posts of President of District Consumer Forums was quashed as it was issued without prior consultation with the High Court. The court held that consultation with the High Court Chief Justice is mandatory under Section 10(1)(a)(i) of the Act. (Paras 1-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Quashing of Government Notification - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned notification as it violated the statutory requirement of consultation, thereby protecting the integrity of the selection process. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 23.04.2012 calling for applications to fill the posts of President of District Consumer Redressal Forums is valid when issued without prior consultation with the High Court as required under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notification dated 23.04.2012 is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh notification after consulting the High Court.
Law Points
- Consultation with High Court Chief Justice is mandatory for appointment of President of District Consumer Forum under Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Non-compliance renders notification invalid
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (01) 7
Writ Petition Nos.14256-14258/2012(GM-RES)
K.Sreedhar Rao, Acting Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna, Justice
Sri T.M.Anil Kumar for petitioners, Sri S.Vijayashankar, Advocate General with Sri P.V.Ravindranath, AGA for R-1 & 2, Sri Ganapathi Bhat for R-3, Sri B.S.Sachin for R-4 & 5, Sri N.Sukumar Jain for R-6
Sri D B Sujendra, Sri Syed Ansar Kalim, Sri A.Lokesh Kumar
State of Karnataka, State of Karnataka (Under Secretary), Registrar of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri K V Krishnamurthy, Sri B.H.Sriharsha, Sri Prakash Kumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a government notification for appointment of Presidents of District Consumer Forums.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notification dated 23.04.2012 and direction to issue fresh notification after consulting the High Court.
Filing Reason
Notification was issued without prior consultation with the High Court as required under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues
Whether the notification dated 23.04.2012 is valid without prior consultation with the High Court under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the notification was issued without mandatory consultation with the High Court.
Respondents did not contest the lack of consultation.
Ratio Decidendi
Consultation with the High Court Chief Justice is mandatory under Section 10(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for appointment of President of District Consumer Forum. Any notification issued without such consultation is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
A notification was issued calling for applications to fill up the posts of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forums of Kodagu, Kolar, Hassan and Bidar districts.
When the process of selection was pending, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notification without prior consultation with the High Court.
The notification is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh notification after consulting the High Court.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 23.04.2012. The High Court heard the matter and delivered the order on 16.01.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 10
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
