Deendayal Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (High Court of Rajasthan) (05 Oct 2015)

President of District Consumer Forum does not need High Court recommendation

MANU/RH/2495/2015

Consumer

Appointment as President to a District Consumer Forum does not require a recommendation from the High Court, and the selection process is governed by the Consumer Protection Act 1986 itself.

The state government had, without giving Petitioners a right to be heard, terminated their service as Presidents of District Consumer Forums. It stated that the Petitioners did not hold requisite eligibility criterion for being appointed to the post. Specifically, to be appointed as President of the Forum, one had to be recommended to the post by the High Court, in a procedure similar to one for selection of district judges.

The court rejected arguments of the State vehemently, and termed termination of the petitioners a “gross violation of the principles of natural justice”. It noted that a ‘blessing’ of the High Court was required when seeking appointment as district judge, not for appointment as President of the District Consumer Forum, which was governed by Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Orders of the State dismissing the petitioners were quashed.

Relevant : Section 10 Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Article 233 Constitution, Act

Tags : DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM PRESIDENT DISTRICT JUDGE