The Madras High Court recently ruled against two notifications issued by Tamil Nadu's Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department for the appointment of members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The court observed that these notifications were based on rules that had already been struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The bench, consisting of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri, highlighted that the notifications relied on the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, which were deemed unconstitutional at the time of the notifications.
Consequently, the court concluded that the notifications were invalid and should be quashed. It further emphasized that any subsequent selection process conducted based on these notifications would also be affected.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The challenge to the notifications was presented by V Sundararaj, who argued that the rules in question had been declared ultra vires the constitution by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on September 14, 2021. Sundararaj pointed out specific provisions, such as Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and Rule 6(9), which pertained to experience requirements and conferred extensive powers to the Selection committee.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Sundararaj also highlighted that the Bombay High Court's judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 3 of the current year. Therefore, since the rules had been struck down and their validity revoked, the entire recruitment process for non-judicial members in consumer forums across the state of Tamil Nadu was compromised.
Contentions of the Respondent:
In response, the State contended that the notifications were issued in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court's orders in 2021, which directed the state governments to fill vacancies in the consumer fora. The Supreme Court had instructed that ongoing appointment procedures should not be hindered by the Nagpur Bench's judgment, considering the importance of filling vacancies, especially when some appointments had already been made or were in advanced stages.
Observations by the Court:
However, the court noted that although the Supreme Court initiated suo moto writ proceedings to monitor the states in 2021, the state of Tamil Nadu issued the impugned notifications in July 2022, almost ten months after the Nagpur Bench's judgment.
The court observed that the State had disregarded several directives issued by the Supreme Court in the suo moto writ proceedings. It concluded that the State of Tamil Nadu had procrastinated on the appointments, despite the Supreme Court's monitoring, and when the impugned notifications were eventually issued, the Nagpur Bench's judgment had already declared some rules, particularly those concerning experience requirements, as unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court reiterated that once a provision of a central law or rule is declared unconstitutional by a High Court, it becomes invalid throughout the entire nation. It cannot be valid within the jurisdiction of a specific High Court while remaining valid elsewhere.
Decision of the Court:
Therefore, due to the notifications being deemed legally flawed, the court set them aside, rendering them null and void. The State Government was directed to take appropriate action to make fresh appointments in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others. The court emphasized that it had solely addressed the impugned notifications and had not considered any other notifications.
Case Title: V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others
Coram: Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri
Case No.: W.P.(MD) Nos.17210 and 18015 of 2022
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Mr.C.M.Arumugam and Mr.D.Venkatachalam
Advocatess of the Respondent: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Malaiyendran, Central Government Standing Counsel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
