P.Subburaj v. Government Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.NO.16775 OF 2020 P.Subburaj ... Petitioner-in-Person .Vs.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Rep. by its Secretary Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Government order in G.O.(Ms) No.125, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (H1) Department, dated 20.10.2015 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently direct the second respondent to frame appropriate Rules by providing for appointment of retired District Judge/Retired Presiding Officer, District Consumer Forum to the post of Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

For the Petitioner :

Mr.P.Subburaj Party-in-person

For the Respondents :

Mr.S.Muthusamy Additional Central Government Standing Counsel For 1st Respondent :

Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader For 2nd Respondent

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This writ petition has been filed to seek a direction to call the records pertaining to the government order in G.O. (Ms) No.125, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (H1) Department, dated 20.10.2015 and to quash the same being illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently, direct the second respondent to frame appropriate rules by providing for appointment of retired District Judge/retired Presiding Officer of District Consumer Forum to the post of Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

2. The petitioner, appearing in person, has made a reference of the government order dated 20.10.2015 to be in conflict with the new legislation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, "Act of 2019") and the respondents have not framed the rules for making appointment and, accordingly, a direction be given so that petitioner is also considered for appointment, as otherwise he remained in the forum for some time.

3. The facts available on record do not show a challenge to the denial of the appointment to the petitioner. The writ petition was filed enclosing the Act of 2019 now operational but failed to refer the Rules of 2020. The petitioner has thus ignored the rules already framed i.e., 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 (for short, "Rules of 2020") which came into force on 20.07.2020. Now the appointment has to be regulated by the Rules of 2020. But without making a reference of it, a prayer has been made even inconsistent with the rules.

4. The petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.30653 of 2019, which was withdrawn by him with liberty to file a fresh petition

in reference to the new legislation. But by filing new writ petition, he did not make reference of the Rules of 2020.

5. During the course of arguments, the petitioner, appearing in person, has made a reference to his own grievance and denial of appointment without a challenge to the denial so as to seek an order for his appointment or for consideration of his candidature. The present writ petition was filed basically to challenge the government order dated 20.10.2015 ignoring that now the appointment and method of recruitment is to be governed as per the Rules of 2020. Accordingly, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be accepted in the light of the facts given above. If the petitioner is denied consideration of appointment despite being eligible, then he could have filed a petition against the denial. But the present writ petition is only to challenge the government order dated 20.10.2015 with a direction to provide appointment to retired District Judge/retired Presiding Officer of District Consumer Forum for the post of Registrar of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The petitioner has not stated that he has made an application for consideration of his appointment.

6. In view of the above, we find no reason to keep this writ petition pending. Rather, in the light of the Rules of 2020, nothing remains for consideration in this matter and, accordingly, the writ petition is ordered to be closed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20783 and 20785 of 2020 are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To 1.

The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

+1cc to Mr.P.Subburaj, Advocate, S.R.No.3815 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4050 W.P.NO.16775 OF 2020 GJ(CO) PBS/28/01/2022