Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan B. vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.4723 OF 2020(M)
PETITIONER:
UNNIKRISHNAN B.,AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. N. BALAKRISHNAPILLA, MATTATHIL,
ERAVIMANGALTHU HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O.,
MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR
RECOMMENDATION OF MEMBERS OF
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - THE PRESIDENT,
THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SISU VIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 010.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 002.
4 K.M. ANTO, KARUVAYIL HOUSE, ADICHIRA,
THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 630.
R1& R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R4 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE
R4 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA
R4 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
R4 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.4723/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021
The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and seeks to declare
that the 4th respondent has no prescribed qualification to be
appointed as Member of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kottayam in view of the fact that he is not
having adequate knowledge and experience of atleast 10
years in the fields specified in Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The State of Kerala issued Ext.P1 notification
inviting application for appointment of the post of Full Time
Member (General), District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Kottayam. The petitioner submitted his application in
the prescribed form. The petitioner submits that he has vast
experience in various public affairs and administration. The
petitioner was a member of National Service Scheme. He
was the District President and District Secretary of
WP(C)No.4723/2020
Mathrubhumi Study Circle. He acted as an Administrative
Manager in the year 1997.
3. The petitioner states that he was the Grama
panchayath member of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat from
2005 to 2010 and from 2015 to till the date of filing of the writ
petition. The petitioner has acted as Secretary of Dhanasree
Service Society for proper guidance for the investors. The
petitioner has successfully completed projects worth ` 1
crore during the period 2005-10 in ward No. 9 of Vijayapuram
Grama Panahcyat and also constructed a new bridge within
110 days. The petitioner was instrumental in making
available 3½ acres of land for construction of by-pass.
4. The petitioner was awarded certificate by the
National Service Scheme, University of Kerala. He was
awarded Certificate of Merit by Nehru Yuva Kendra,
Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of HRD,
Government of India. Inspite of petitioner's vast experience
in the field of economics, law, public affairs and
WP(C)No.4723/2020
administration and inspite of his superior eligibility and merit,
the 1st respondent appointed the 4th respondent to the post.
5. In fact the selection committee forwarded Ext.P4
minutes to the Government. In Ext.P4, the name of the 4 th
respondent was placed at serial No.1 and name of the
petitioner was at serial No.2.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government
ought to have found that the 4 th respondent does not satisfy
the qualifications prescribed under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore rejected the
candidature of the 4th respondent and appointed the
petitioner.
7. The petitioner would contend that there is no
practice or convention of appointing retired police officers to
judicial and quasi-judicial fora. The 2nd respondent
Committee therefore committed a grave mistake in short
listing the 4th respondent. The petitioner would further point
out that as per the provisions of the Kerala Police Act, the
WP(C)No.4723/2020
retired police officers are bound to attend the courts regularly
for adducing evidence in respect of the cases in which their
names figure as witnesses. This will be hindrance to
discharge of duties as member of Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum.
8. The petitioner would further contend that a retired
police officer cannot be described as one having experience
in dealing with problems relating to Economics, Law,
Commerce, Accountancy, Industry, Public Affairs or
Administration. Therefore the 2nd respondent Selection
Committee committed a grave error in including the 4 th
respondent's name in the short list.
9. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit and
defended the writ petition. According to the 4 th respondent,
he satisfies the condition prescribed in Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner has
worked in the rank of Dy.S.P. from 01.07.2008 to 08.06.2017.
Thereafter he was promoted as Superintendent of Police on
WP(C)No.4723/2020
05.06.2017.
10. The 4th respondent would contend that the general
duties of Police as laid down in Section 3 of the Kerala Police
Act would include functioning among the people as part of
the administrative system, subject to the Constitution of India
and the laws enacted thereunder. The general duties of
Police also include ensuring all persons enjoy the freedom
and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and
order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and
protection of human rights. The 4 th respondent has sufficient
exposure in law, public affairs and even in administration.
Therefore, it cannot be state that the 4th respondent is
disqualified for the post of Member of the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to
3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
12. The main ground for challenging the appointment
WP(C)No.4723/2020
of the 4th respondent as Member of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum Kottayam, is lack of qualification
of the 4th respondent. The qualification of a Member
prescribed under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 is as follows:
"Be persons of ability, integrity and
standing, and have adequate knowledge and
experience of atleast ten years in dealing with
problems relating to economics, law,
commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs
or administration."
A perusal of the provision would show that a person being
appointed to the post of Member shall have ability, integrity
and standing and have adequate knowledge and experience
of atleast ten years in dealing with problems relating to
Economis, Law, Commercie, Accountancy, Industry, Public
Affairs or Administration. Therefore the issue is whether the
4th respondent who has worked as Deputy Superintendent of
Police and Superintendent of Police satisfies the requirement
in Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act.
13. The 4th respondent has produced Ext.R4(a) which
WP(C)No.4723/2020
is an extract of Kerala Police Manual, 1969. Paragraph 215
and 216 of the Volume I of Kerala Police Manual, 1969 reads
as follows:
"215(1) The Superintendent of Police
should consider it a part of his duty, as far as
possible, to give the Sub-Divisional Officers the
benefit of his personal guidance and
instruction, whenever necessary.
(2) The Superintendent of Police is the Head of
the District Police Force. He is responsible for
all matters relating to its internal economy and
management, for the maintenance of its
discipline, and for the punctual and regular
performance of all its preventive and executive
duties. His work is of a multifarious nature and,
in doing it, he should keep in view the following
essential requirements:-
(a) to keep the district peaceful and the
public satisfied with the security afforded to
persons and property.
(b) to keep the force in good discipline,
under control, well trained, efficient and
contented
(c) to maintain cordial relations with the
Magistracy and other officials and non-officials
(d) to see that the transport arms and
ammunitions, stores and buildings belonging to
the department are maintained in good
condition.
(e) to promote good police-public relations
(f) to organise good intelligence
arrangements
(g) to acquire full and detailed knowledge of
the District and its current problems from the
Police point of view.
(h) to participate to the extent possible and
WP(C)No.4723/2020
permissible, in welfare activities sponsored by
official and non-official agencies
(i) to gain the confidence and loyalty of
subordinates by personal integrity, impartiality,
devotion to duty and a high sense of justice
(j) to ensure by constant supervision that
the prevention, investigation and detection of
crime in his District are properly and efficiently
dealt with by the Force under his command
(k) to get to know all officers and men
serving under him, redress their grievances, if
any, encourage those who are promising and
weed out those who are unfit to the
department.
(l) to study crimes and criminals in his
district as a whole, and
(m) to pay surprise visits to the Police
stations at regular intervals and check up
whether officers and men are alert.
(3) The Superintendent of Police shall give the
Deputy Inspector General of Police all
assistance in making his inspections and
inquiries and consult him in all his difficulties.
(4) Every Superintendent of Police should visit
sick Policemen in Hospitals regularly once a
week at least. It is extremely desirable that
every Policeman should feel that his superior
takes an interest in his welfare and such visits
are calculated to ensure greater attention being
paid to men.
(5) When at head-quarters, the Superintendent
of Police should attend Office on all working
days and should ordinarily transact all Official
business in his office. He may, however,
dispose of such confidential matters as he think
proper at his residence. He should be readily
accessible to officials and members of the
public generally.
(6) The Superintendent of Police shall make
necessary arrangements for the transaction of
WP(C)No.4723/2020
all urgent and important work during casual
leave taken by himself or any of his Sub-
Divisional Officers.
(7) The Superintendent of Police and the Sub-
Divisional Officer should take steps to ensure
that the prosecuting and investigating Officers
show due interest in the prosecution of cases in
court and that no case fails on account of
apathy or neglect on the part of the prosecuting
or investigating staff.
(8) The Superintendent of Police must keep in
close touch with all political and communal
movements in the district and he must take
precautions to see that such movements do not
result in a breach of the peace. He should also
require his subordinates to keep him fully
informed of all political and communal
developments, and he should use his District
Special Branch staff to secure information in
regard to such developments. He should not
hesitate to seek the advice of the District
Collector on all such matters.
(9) The Superintendent of Police may withdraw
subordinate Police Officers and men
temporarily from Police stations in his district
for duty at other Police Stations in the same
district at which extra forces are required to
deal with an emergency or to make
arrangements in connection with fairs or
festivals, meetings or processions.
(10) The internal administration of the police
Department is however the responsibility of the
Superintendent of Police. The internal economy
and discipline of the Police, such as
promotions, transfers and punishments of
Police officers and men rest with the Superior
Officers of the Police Force.
(11) The Superintendent of Police shall inform
the District Collector of his, intended absence
before leaving the District on duty or on casual
WP(C)No.4723/2020
leave.
(12) The Superintendent of Police should
attend the District Armed Reserve Parade at
least once and preferably twice a week.
(13) The Superintendent of Police is
responsible for seeing that his assistants and
deputies work efficiently and it is his duty to
bring to the notice of the Deputy Inspector
General of Police and the Inspector General of
Police, any defects of character or
temperament or want of zeal, which detract
from their utility as Police Officers. The
Superintendent of Police may require from an
Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police
who fails to secure his confidence, any reports
or restrict him to any duty, which he sees fit.
Reporting the same to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police and Inspector General of
Police.
216. The duties of an Assistant or Deputy
Superintendent of Police in charge of a Sub-
Division are similar, subject to their limitations,
to those of the Superintendent of Police. These
officers are entirely under the orders of the
Superintendent of Police whom they are bound
to keep fully informed of their doings and of
what is going on in the Sub-Division, and to
consult him in all matters of difficulty,
Correspondence, other than matters of routine
with other departments should pass through the
Superintendent of Police."
A perusal of the said provisions would show that a person in
the rank of Superintendent of Police has as his duty, to
promote good police-public relations. A Superintendent of
WP(C)No.4723/2020
Police is expected to ensure by constant supervision that the
prevention, investigation and detection of crime in his District
are properly and efficiently dealt with by the Force under his
command. He is also required to study crimes and criminals
in his district as a whole.
14. Ext.R4(a) would further show that the
Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Divisional Officer
should take steps to ensure that the prosecuting and
investigating Officers show due interest in the prosecution of
cases in court, and that no case fails on account of apathy or
neglect on the part of the prosecuting or investigating staff.
15. Paragraph 216 of Ext.R4(a) provides for the duties
of Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is evident
that the duty of Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police
is to discharge the same functioning of Superintendent of
Police in their respective areas. From perusal of Ext.R4(a), it
is discernible that persons holding rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police are exposed to the fields of law,
WP(C)No.4723/2020
public affairs and administration.
16. On a perusal of Ext.R4(a), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the experience gained by the 4 th
respondent by working as Deputy Superintendent of Police
and Superintendent of Police, amply satisfies the
requirements under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
17. The contention that retired Police Officers will
have to frequent to criminal courts to adduce evidence,
cannot be a reason to hold that they are disqualified for
appointment to the post of Member, Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum.
In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/05.02.2021
WP(C)No.4723/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
22.10.2018
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
06.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 16.11.2019
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 13.01.2020
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2018
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 30.10.1983.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT
DATED 12.01.1994 ISSUED BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED
IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 10.01.1994.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
13.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.05.2017 IN WP(C)NO.12799/2017.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED
29.02.2012 IN O.S.NO.259/2011 OF THE
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM
WP(C)No.4723/2020
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.04.2016 IN A.S.NO.11/2014 OF THE
PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
15.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING EDITOR
OF FOTOWIDE PHOTOGRAPHY MAGAZINE
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
KERALA POLICE MANUAL.
