Karnataka High Court
Sri.Onkarasa S/O. Ishwarasa. Basava vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.100905/2022(GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
SRI ONKARASA S/O. ISHWARASA BASAVA.
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: KALASAPUR ROAD,
VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR,
GADAG, DT: GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI O I BASAVA, PARTY - IN - PERSON)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVT, IIIRD FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
Digitally
signed by SECRETARY TO GOVT, JUSTICE, LAW AND
MANJANNA E HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT,
Location:
High Court of VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
Karnataka
3. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL
METROLOGY DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY
SECRETARY TO GOVT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL
METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
5. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT,
LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT (THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED U/SEC 10(1)A
OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986.)
BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
7. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR BASAVA BHAVAN,
BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
8. THE HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HON'BLE
REGISTRAR GENERAL { THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED
UNDER RULE 6(1) OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
(APPOINTMENTS AND OTHERS)
RULES 2020} HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT,
OPPOSITE VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
9. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT, IIIRD FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
10. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT,
FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER
AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
11. THE STATE OF KARANATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
TO GOVT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER
AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
12. UNION OF INDIA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
DEPARMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
13. SRI ESHAPPA KARABASAPPA BHUTE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, DHARWAD.
14. SMT. ACHANDIRA KENCHAPPA NAVEEN KUWARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS CHAMARAJANAGAR.
15. SRI T.SHIVANNA.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, HASSAN.
16. SRI NEERAPADY RAMANNA GOWDA
CHENNAKEHAVA, AGE:MAJOR,
OCC: PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
17. SRI SHIVARAM.K.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
BANGALURU URBAN 3RD ADDL
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
18. SRI RACHAPPA KUBERAPPA TALIKOTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, BELAGAVI.
19. SMT. CHANCHALA.C.M.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, MANDYA.
20. SRI ANNASAHEB SHANKAR SADALGE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCE: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, KALBURGI.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
21. SRI SANJEEV KULKARNI.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
BELAGAVI ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BELAGAVI.
22. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI.G.T.,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, TUMAKURU.
23. SRI D.Y.BASAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS GADAG.
24. SRI. ABDUL SALEEM G. MALDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, KOPPAL.
25. SMT. M. SHOBHA.
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
BANGALURU URBAN 2ND ADDL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
BANGALURU.
26. SRI VIJAYKUMAR MALKAJAPPA PAWALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, BAGALKOT.
27. SRI H. CHANNEGOWDA,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, RAMANAGAR.
28. SRI VENKATESH JOSHI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, RAICHUR.
29. SRI K. V. SURENDRA KUMAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
30. SRI SYED ANSWER KALEEM,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, KOLAR.
31. SRI M. S. RAMACHANDRA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
BANGALURU URBAN 4TH ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
32. SRI THIPPESWAMY. N.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BALLARI.
33. SRI MAHANTESH IRAPPA SHIGLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
CHITRADURGA.
34. SRI SUNIL MASARADDI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, UDUPI.
35. SRI MABU SAHEB H. CHABBI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BIDAR.
36. SRI ESHWARAPPA B. S.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, HAVERI.
37. SRI SHRINIDHI H. N.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, CHAMARAJANAGAR.
38. SRI KAMALKISHORE RAMESHWAR JOSHI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, VIJAYAPURA.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
39. SRI GIRISHAGOUDA SHIVAMURTEPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, KOPPAL.
40. SRI C. S. TYAGARAJAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, DAVANAGERE.
41. SRI DEVARAJU. B.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 2ND ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
42. SRI M. LOKESH.,
AGE: MAJOR. OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, YADAGIRI.
43. SRI RAJU K. S.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 3RD ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
44. SRI H. JANARADHAN
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
45. SRI MANJUNATH M. BAMMANAKATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
46. SRI. B. D. YOGANANDA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, SHIVAMOGGA.
47. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S. NOOLA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 4TH ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
48. SRI. THRIYAMBAKESHWARA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BIDAR.
49. SRI MARUTHI VADDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, MYSURU.
50. SRI P. MAQBOOL BASHA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, (DELETED AS PER THE
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL ORDER OF THIS COURT
DATED 18.10.2022).
COMMISSIONS KALBURGI.
51. SRI RAJU NAMADEV METRI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, GADAG.
52. SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA KASHAPPA HANDIGOL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BALLARI.
53. SMT. SUMA ANIL KUMAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, KOLAR.
54. SMT. E. PREMA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, YADAGIRI.
55. SRI C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BAGALKOT.
56. SMT. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, GADAG.
57. SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
58. SMT. SAVITA AIRANI.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC : WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, DAVANAGERE.
59. SMT. UMADEVI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,HAVERI.
60. SMT. B. U. GEETA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
BELAGAVI.
61. SMT. NANDINI H. KUMBHAR.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 4TH ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
62. SMT. JYOTHI N.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
RAMANAGAR.
63. SMT. G. F. SOWBHAGYA LAKSHMI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
KOPPAL.
64. SMT. ANUPAMA.R.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, HASSAN.
65. SMT. BHARATHI.M.V.,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
REDDRESSAL COMMISSIONS,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
66. SMT. LATHA. M. S.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, MANDYA.
67. SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS DAKSHINA KANNADA.
68. SMT. V. ANURADHA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 2ND ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS,
BANGALURU.
69. SMT. GOWRAMMANNI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS KOLAR.
70. SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WOMEN MEMBER,
BANGALURU URBAN 3RD ADDL
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL
COMMISSIONS, BANGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 TO 7 & 9 TO 11;
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R8;
SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV. FOR R12;
SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI AND SRI CHETAN PATIL,
ADVTS. FOR R13, 20, 23, 26, 35, 48, 51, 55, 56, & 69;
SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADV. FOR R15 & 46;
SRI RAKESH M. BILKI, ADV. FOR R18, R21 AND R60;
SRI S.S.BETURMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI K.L.PATIL, ADV. FOR R33 & R39;
MISS. BUSHRA WAREMANI, ADV. FOR
SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADV. FOR R38;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27
TO 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, TO 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
61 TO 68 & 70 ARE SERVED;
RESPONDENT NO.50 IS DELETED V/O DATED 18.10.2022)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226, 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.10 ON DATED 29.03.2021
ANNEXURE-A5 BEARING REF-NO.FCS 60 SLF 2020. QUASH SELECTED
CANDIDATE LIST FOR PRESIDENT, MEMBER AND WOMEN MEMBER POST
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.11 ON DATED
21-01-2022 ANNEXURE-C BEARING REF-NO.FCS 60 SLF 2021. QUASH
THE RULE 3(2)(B), RULE 4(2)(C) AND RULE 6(9) OF RULES2020,
ANNEXURE-A3 DATED 15/07/2020 MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.12 SAME
ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. A WRIT MANDAMUS MAY BE
ISSUED AGAINST CONCERNED RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE
CONCERNED RESPONDENTS/SELECTION COMMITTEE OBEY THE THIS
HON BLE COURT JUDGMENT ORDER IN W.P.NO.113577/2019 C/W
W.P.NO.103124/2016 AND W.P.NO.102372/2017 DATED 21-09-2021
ANNEXURE-B AND TO APPOINT PETITIONER AS THE PRESIDENT OF
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN ANY OF
THE VACANT POSITION IN DISTRICT COMMISSIONS IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. DIRECTING THE CONCERNED
RESPONDENTS/SELECTION COMMITTEE MADE FRESH PROCESS OF
SELECTION OF PRESIDENT, MEMBER AND WOMEN MEMBER OF
DISTRICT COMMISSION BE INITIATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AMENDED RULES AND COMPLETED AT THE EARLIEST AS DIRECTED BY
THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. RESPONDENT NO.12(UNION
OF INDIA) IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATELY MADE RULES
AS SUBSTITUTES FOR RULE 3(2)(B), RULE 4(2)(C)AND RULE 6(9) OF
THE RULES 2020. CALL FOR ENTIRE CASE RECORDS OF THIS HON BLE
COURT JUDGMENT ORDER IN W.P.NO.113577/2019 C/W
W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/ 2017 DATED 21/09/2021
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
WP No. 100905 of 2022
ORDER
1. The petitioner an aspirant to the post of President
of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
("District Commission" for short) is seeking grant of writ in
the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notification
dated 29.03.2021 vide Annexure-C, to quash Rule-3(2)(b),
Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection
(Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment,
Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Registration and
Removal of the President and Members of the State
Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 ("Rules,
2020" for short) made by respondent No.12 dated
15.07.2020 vide Annexure-A3, seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the concerned respondents/Selection Committee to
obey the order of this court in W.P.No.113577/2019 C/w
W.P.No.103124/2016 and W.P.No.102372/2017 dated
21.09.2021 vide Annexure-B, appoint the petitioner as the
president in any of the vacant posts in District Commissions,
direct the concerned respondent/selection committee make
fresh process of selection of president, member and women
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
member of District Commission be initiated in accordance
with the amended rules and complete the same at the
earliest.
2. Heard Sri O.I.Basava, the party in person and Sri
Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath learned counsel for
respondent No.8, Sri Shivaraj Balloli, learned counsel for
respondent No.12, Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi and Sri Chetan
Patil for proposed respondent Nos.13, 20, 23, 26, 35, 48, 51,
55, 56 & 69, Sri Vidyashankar G.Dalawai learned counsel for
proposed respondent Nos.15 and 46, Sri Rakesh M.Bilki,
learned counsel for proposed respondent Nos.18, 21 and 60,
Sri S.S.Beturmath for Sri K.L.Patil learned counsel for
respondent proposed respondent Nos.33 and 39, Sri Srinivas
B.naik, learned counsel for respondent No.38.
3. Notice to respondent Nos.14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24,
25, 27 to 32, 34, 36, 37, 40 to 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57,
58, 59, 61 to 68 and 70 though served, remain
unrepresented.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
4. Petitioner appeared in person and submitted that
even though he is seeking to quash notification as per
Annexure-5, selected candidates list as per Annexure-C,
Rules as per Annexure-3 and writ of mandamus to direct the
selection committee to follow the directions issued in
W.P.No.113577/2019 C/W W.P.No.103124/2016 &
W.P.NO.102372/2017, directing the respondents to make
fresh process of selection to the post of President and
Members of the District Commission directing respondent
No.12 to substitute the Rules referred to in the writ petition,
he is not pressing all those prayers as he has already filed a
memo in that regard.
5. Petitioner submits that, if Annexure-K dated
12.07.2023 an endorsement issued by respondents rejecting
his prayer to consider his representation for appointment to
the post of President is considered, and if a direction in the
form of mandamus is issued to the respondents to appoint
him to the vacant post of the President that is available, he
would be satisfied.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
6. The petitioner contended that initially the
notification was issued calling for applications by the eligible
candidates for the post of President, Members and the
Women members to the District Commissions. He has also
applied for the post of President. He is having experience of
practicing as an advocate for more than 20 years and
therefore he is eligible for the said post. Even though he
appeared for the viva-voce conducted by the Committee, his
candidature was not considered by the Committee for the
simple reason that, he was not the District Judge or the
Former District Judge for whom the priority was given. When
the selection list was published, he fled W.P.No.113577/2019
C/W W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/2017 and
connected matters before this Court. The said writ petitions
came to be allowed vide order dated 21.09.2021, holding
that the eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of
President of the Consumer Forum. This Court had also
quashed condition No.1A(ii) giving priority to the District
Judges and the Former District Judges and writ of mandamus
was issued to the respondents to consider his application
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
dated 10.07.2019 in accordance with law. In-spite of that
the respondents have not considered the candidature of the
petitioner for the post of President. On the other hand, they
issued Annexure-K dated 12.07.2023 informing that the
appointment process is already completed; the Selection
Committee is not in existence and therefore, the application
of the petitioner cannot be considered. This endorsement as
per Annexure-K is in clear violation of the direction issued by
this Court in W.P.No.113577/2019 C/w
W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/2017.
7. The petitioner submits that even though the
applications were called for to fill-up 22 posts of Presidents,
24 persons were appointed which is in excess of the
notification. However still there is vacancy in several districts
and therefore he prays for quashing Annexure-K dated
12.07.2023 and directing the respondents to appoint him to
the vacant post in any of the District Commissions, wherever
it is available and accordingly prays for allowing the writ
petition.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.8
opposing the petition submitted that, initially the petitioner
had applied for the post of president under the old
notification dated 04.06.2019. Subsequently, 2020 Rules
were framed and the Selection Committee was constituted
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, nominating one of
the sitting judges of the High Court of Karnataka as
chairperson with the Additional Chief Secretary, Department
of Food and Civil Supplies and one more Additional Chief
Secretary nominated by the Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka and constituted the Committee. The applications
were called for from the eligible candidates. There was
reconstitution of the Committee on 26.10.2021. Even though
the petitioner had applied for the post of President under the
new notification, he had not chosen to appear for the written
examination, which was the pre-requisite to consider his
eligibility to call for vivo-voce for the purpose of final
selection of the candidates.
9. Learned counsel submitted that, the writ petition
referred to by the petitioner in W.P.No.113577/2019 C/w
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/2017 was
considering the earlier notification issued under the earlier
Rules before amendment in the year 2020. Prescribed under
the new notification dated 29.03.2021, the candidates were
asked to appear for written examination and if they are
qualified in the same, they would be eligible for vivo-voce to
select the right candidate for the post. Since the petitioner
has not appeared for the written examination and he has not
chosen to participate in the proceedings he could not have
any grievance for not selecting for the post. Therefore the
petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Since the
petitioner had never taken part in the written examination,
he cannot have any remedy before this Court. Accordingly,
prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.12-the Union
of India, submits that in view of formation of the New Rules
of the year 2020, the prayer for quashing the earlier Rules
does not arise for consideration. Rule 3(b) refers to the
Qualification for Appointment of the President and Members
of the State Commission, which is not applicable to the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
petitioner. Rule 4(2)(c) of the said Rule relates to the
qualification for appointment of the President and Members
of the District Commission, where the eligibility criteria is
fixed, which includes integrity and standing, having special
knowledge and professional experience for a period of 15
years. According to the petitioner he is having the
experience of more than 20 years. Therefore, the petitioner
is not affected by the said rule and there is no reason to
quash the same. The other Rule referred to by the petitioner
is Rule 6(9), wherein the Selection Committee is required to
determine the procedure for making its recommendation
keeping in view the requirements of the State Commission or
the District Commission and after taking into account the
suitability, record of past performance, integrity and
adjudicatory experience. There is no reason to quash the
said Rule as it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee
to consider the suitability, integrity, adjudicatory experience
and the record of past performance of the candidate for the
purpose of selecting him/her for the said post.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
11. Learned counsel further submits that since the
petitioner even though applied under the new notification,
has not chosen to appear for the written examination he
cannot have any grievance before this Court and cannot
have any relief. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the
petition.
12. Learned counsel representing the respondent
Nos.13, 20, 23, 26, 35, 48, 51, 55, 56 and 69, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.15 & 46, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.18, 21 & 60, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.33 & 39 and learned counsel for respondent No.38 i.e.,
the selected candidates submitted that the respondents were
appointed for various posts on 02.03.2022. Two years have
already lapsed in the term of four years and therefore they
pray for dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable.
13. Perused the material on record.
14. Even though the petitioner has raised several
grievances, praying for several reliefs, he submits that he is
not pressing all those prayers, but he will be satisfied if
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
Annexure-K dated 12.07.2023 issued by respondents is
quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to
appoint him as the President of the District Commission,
wherever the vacancy is available. According to the
petitioner, he is already declared as an eligible candidate by
the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order
in W.P.No.113577/2019 C/w W.P.NO.103124/2016 &
W.P.NO.102372/2017.
15. The W.P.No.113577/2019 C/W
W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/2017 were
considered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, which
was also filed by the very same petitioner, seeking writ of
certiorari to quash the notification dated 04.06.2019 and
29.08.2019 and writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to re-consider his application to be appointed as President of
District Commission, wherever the vacancy is there and also
issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents to
issue fresh selection list for the post of President of the
District Commission. Those petitions were considered and
the following order was passed.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
"ORDER
i.The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned condition No.1A(ii) at Annexure-A1
dated 04.06.2019 to the extent that it prescribes and
stipulates priority in favour of the District Judges and
Retired/Resigned District Judges is hereby quashed.
iii. A writ of mandamus is issued against the concerned
respondents and directing the concerned respondents
to reconsider the petitioner's application at Annexure-
B dated 10.07.2019 in accordance with law and take
appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of disposal of Writ petition No.113577/2019,
the other connected writ petition Nos.103124/2016 and
Writ Petition No.102372/2017 are disposed off."
16. During pendency of the writ petitions fresh
notification was came to be issued on 29.03.2021, calling for
the applications by the eligible candidates as per Rules 2020.
17. It is pertinent to note that petitioner had
challenged the notification dated 04.06.2019 issued by
respondent No.7, which is apparently the old notification
issued earlier. When the materials on record disclose that the
fresh notification dated 29.03.2021 was issued during the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
pendency of the writ petitions, but the order was passed,
since the same was not brought to the notice of the Court
while disposing of the writ petitions. The Court had
considered the qualification as stated by the petitioner and
held that he is having required qualification to be considered
for the post and direction was issued to the respondents to
reconsider the petitioner's application dated 10.07.2019.
Obviously, which was filed under old notification dated
04.06.2019.
18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner even though
had applied for the post of President to the District
Commission under the new notification dated 29.03.2021, he
has not chosen to appear for the written examination which
was the procedure adopted under the notification. According
to the petitioner, he is already declared as an eligible
candidate to be appointed for the post of the President, as
per the order dated 21.09.2021 and therefore there was no
need for him to write the examination once again. The
petitioner has also contended that as per order dated
14.03.2022, the Division Bench in this writ petition was
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
convinced that, the petitioner is eligible for the reliefs
claimed in the petition and therefore, the reliefs are to be
granted as prayed for.
19. The order dated 14.03.2022 is to the effect that,
if the petitioner is to succeed in light of the contentions
raised, the Court will appropriately take note of the prayer
sought by the petitioner and would mould relief. But the
undisputed facts of the case are that even though the
petitioner has applied under the new notification dated
29.03.2021, he never chosen to appear for the written
examination which is the prerequisite to call him for viva-
voce, to consider his suitability for the post and for his
appointment.
20. When the petitioner has not participated in the
selection process by writing written examination, it cannot be
said that he is eligible candidate to be considered by the
respondent for appointment as the president of the District-
Commission, simply because W.P.No.113577/2019 C/W
W.P.NO.103124/2016 & W.P.NO.102372/2017 were allowed
by this Court. The petitioner cannot seek similar relief when
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4917
a new notification was issued and he has not participated in
the selection procedure by writing the written examination.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled
for any of the relief either claimed in the petition or now
sought orally before the Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
EM,BH/CT-ASC
