Kerala High Court
Shajitha Beevi N vs Confederation Of Consumer Vigilance ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 588 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 IN I.A.NO.4/2024 IN WP(C)
NO.7999 OF 2024
APPELLANTS:
1 SHAJITHA BEEVI N, W/O. BIJILI JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS,
"SAMATHA" KAALATHU WARD, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT - 688 008, FORMERLY MEMBER, CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 745 (RELIEVED ON
23.01.2024), PIN - 688008
2 ASAMOL P, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. ANIL KUMAR, REMANIKA
HOUSE, (MUKKATH), VAIKAPRAYAR P.O., UDAYANAPURAM
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 143 ,
FORMERLY MEMBER, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
IDUKKI - 685 603 (RELIEVED ON 30.11.2023) [ADDL.R6 AND
R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN
I.A.2/2024 IN WP(C)7999/2024], PIN - 686143
BY ADVS.
K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
PINKU MARIAM JOSE
K.M.FATHIMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 CONFEDERATION OF CONSUMER VIGILANCE CENTRE
REGISTER NO.T.187/1997, SREEKOVIL, KODUNGANOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY, MR.A.AYYAPPAN NAIR, 71 YEARS, S/O AYYAPPAN
PILLAI, SREEKOVIL, KODUNGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN - 695013
2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING MINISTRY OF
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS 5TH FLOOR,
SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
WA 588/24
2
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, P & ARD DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
5 THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
& CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & REGISTRAR, SISUVIHAR
LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
CGC - DAYA SINDHU SREEHARI
SR. GP. - C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA 588/24
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants assail the order of the learned Single Judge in
I.A.No.4/2024 in WP(C)No.7999/2024, on the specific assertion that
the factum of them having demitted their office could not have been
a reason in them being not granted the benefit of the earlier interim
order issued on 29.02.2024.
2. The facts involved in this case are not in dispute.
3. The appellants are stated to have been functioning as
members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Forums' for short) of Pathanamthitta and Idukki
Districts respectively; and say that, on account of the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2024, they were entitled to continue
in such position, notwithstanding the fact that they demitted their
offices prior to it. They add that, they have moved an application for
this purpose; but which has now been rejected by the learned Single
Judge through the impugned order.
4. We have examined the earlier interim order dated
29.02.2024 relied upon by the appellants and it, no doubt, says that,
since the notification is yet to be published, the official respondents
are ordered to allow the President of the 'Forum', as well as the
President and members of the District Commissions, to continue in the
posts as a temporary measure as per the Rules which prevailed when
they were appointed, till the finalisation of the selection process and
till consequent appointments are made by the competent Authorities.
5. However, the learned Single Judge, when it came to the
appellants, took the view that they had already retired from service
and therefore, that the benefit of the order dated 29.02.2024 cannot
be granted to them.
6. As said above, the appellants assail this portion of the
order.
7. Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran - learned counsel for the
appellants, submitted that, when the interim order dated 29.02.2024
operated as a general direction, it was not even necessary for his
clients to have approached this Court seeking a further direction; but
that they did so by way of abundant caution, which has now been
rejected.
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.C.S.Sheeja,
however, submitted that, as evident from the tenor of the interim
order dated 29.02.2024, the benefit granted therein could have
applied only to those persons who were in service on that day. She
submitted that, in any event, this is the manner in which the learned
Judge who passed that order found in the order presently impugned.
9. We have no doubt that the learned Single Judge exercised
discretion in issuing both orders - namely, the one dated 29.02.2024
and the one impugned in this Appeal. Normally, therefore, this Court
would be loathe to enter into the merits of the same in any manner.
10. However, we are certainly of the prima facie opinion that,
when the earlier interim order dated 29.02.2024, took the view that
all members and Presidents of the District Commissions should be
allowed to continue as a temporary measure and when this would not
cause any prejudice to the official respondents either - because the
selection processes and consequent appointments were not interdicted
- the claim of the appellants could have been considered de hors the
fact that they had demitted office, or had retired. This, of course, is
only a suggestion of this Bench and hence think that this is a matter
that the learned Single Judge must be requested to reconsider,
adverting to the nature of the order earlier issued by him on
29.02.2024.
In such perspective, we dispose of this Appeal with a request to
the learned Single Judge to reconsider the claim of the appellants,
adverting to his own order dated 29.02.2024; however, clarifying that
we have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions.
Needless to say, to pave way for the afore, we vacate that
portion of the impugned order which finds that the appellants are not
entitled to be granted benefits under the interim order dated
29.02.2024; however, leaving this also open to be reconsidered by the
learned Single Judge during the afore exercise.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
RR
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.2.2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP©.NO. 7999/2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED FOR
INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE CDRC DATED
07.02.2023.
ANNEXURE R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION
DATED 23.03.2023.
