D. Sathish Kumar v. The Principal Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 7444 of 2026 D.Sathish Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar (Behind TNPSC), Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the tenure of the petitioner as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, Tamil Nadu with the existing service conditions until the completion of recruitment process as per new Rules in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors., Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors., Civil Appeal No.9982/ 2024 dated 21.05.2025.
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr.T.Sellakannu For Respondent(s) :
Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the tenure of the petitioner as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai District with the existing service conditions until the completion of recruitment process as per new Rules in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors., Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors., Civil Appeal No.9982/2024 dated 21.05.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows: 3.1. The petitioner was appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram through Government Order dated 18.03.2022 and thereafter, transferred to Chennai(North) vide proceedings dated 10.06.2025. The petitioner's recruitment and appointment were made in
accordance with the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2020 Rules). As per Rule 10 of the 2020 Rules (as amended in 2022), every member of the State Commission and the President and every Member of the District Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of sixty five years and such reappointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioner's tenure as President is due to end in the month of March, 2026. However, the petitioner is entitled to continue till the recruitment process under the New Rules to be notified and hence, the present Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors vs Mehendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors reported in (2025) 8 SCC 634, wherein directions with regard to the status of appointment to the post of Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions has been issued. The relevant direction is as follows:
a) If already appointed and serving, they shall be allowed to continue in service for the entirety of their tenure. In the event of their tenure ending before the completion of the recruitment process under the new rules to be notified, their appointment shall be allowed to continue until the completion of the said recruitment process.
6.
Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and the Members of the District Commission, who have given the written examination and viva voce Thus, it is clear that in the event of completion of tenure before the completion of the recruitment process, their appointment shall be allowed to continue till the completion of recruitment process. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's tenure is over by March, 2026 and as such, he cannot be permitted to continue till the new recruitment to the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram, however, he has not disputed the facts of the case and also fairly admitted the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram on 18.03.2022. His tenure as per Rule 10 of the Rules, shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier. Now, the petitioner's tenure is due to end in the month of March, 2026. But so far, there is no
recruitment to the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue the service as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram till the completion of recruitment process under the new Rules.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
26-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kkn To:
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar (Behind TNPSC), Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
KKN WP No. 7444 of 2026 26-02-2026