Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved