SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved