TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en issued by the State of Tamil Nadu as on 22.10.2021. The earliest notification calling for applications for the post of President and Members of the District Forum was made on 19.12.2021, i.e., after the order dated 22.10.2021. The impugned notifications have been made on 17.07.2022. It should be pointed out at this juncture at the risk of repetition that both these notifications were subsequent to the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in VIJAYKUMAR BHIMA DIGHE, DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER, THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER [ 2021 (9) TMI 1499 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] declaring Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) as unconstitutional. Therefore, legally and technically those Rules were not in the statute book on the date when the notifications calling for appointment were issued. The State had successfully dragged its feet on the appointments, despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was monitoring the action taken by the States in filling up the vacancies in the Consumer Fora. A bare perusal of records of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WP.(MD)No.18015 of 2022 Mr.D.Venkatachalam for petitioner in WMP.(MD)Nos.22467 19441 of 2022 ORDER The challenge in W.P.(MD)No.17210 of 2022 is to the notification dated 17.07.2022, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member in the District Consumer Redressal Commission in the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. The other writ petition viz., W.P.(MD)No.18015 of 2022 has been filed challenging a similar notification dated 17.07.2022, issued by the very same Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Member (Nonjudicial / earmarked for women candidate) in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 3. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the impugned notifications issued on 17.07.2022 are based on the Rules framed by the Central Government in the year 2020 are bad in law, in view of the fact that some of the Rules particularly Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) have been declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 14.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules were called 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. Some of these Rules, particularly Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) were challenged before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in WP.No.1096 of 2021. 8. The challenge was mounted on the ground that the requirement of experience of not less than 20 years prescribed in Rule 3(2)(b), 15 years prescribed in Rule 4(2)(c) and the sweeping powers given to the selection committee under Rule 6(9) are ultra vires the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by its judgement dated 14.09.2021 struck down the above three provisions on the ground that they are ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Division Bench held that Rule 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules, 2020 prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission under the Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Central Government to amend the Rules in accordance with the directions contained in its judgement dated 03.03.2023. 12. Be that as it may, the questions that arise in these writ petitions are a) The effect of the judgement of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court striking down some of the Rules as unconstitutional and b) The effect of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No.2 of 2021. 13. While Mr.Prahu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(MD)No.17210 of 2022 and Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(MD)No.18015 of 2022 would vehemently contend that once the Rules framed by the Central Government have been struck down by a High Court as unconstitutional, they are effaced from the statute book and any notification/s issued under those Rules or anything done pursuant to those Rules would be invalid, unless it is shown that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed some orders in the appeal/ appeals against the judgement of the High Court reviving the said Rules. 14. It is not shown to us that the operation of the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections. Learned ASG submits that the two weeks window was provided by the judgment of the High Court to enable the Central Government or any party aggrieved by the judgment to assail the same before us and the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra are in process of filing the SLP. Be that as it may, the question is whether the process which has been initiated in the different States in pursuance to our comprehensive order passed on 11.08.2021 should be kept in abeyance in view of this judgment. On consideration of the importance of filling up of the vacancies, we are of the view that the timeline and processes fixed by us must continue as in some of the cases the appointments have been made and in others the appointment process is at an advance stage. Thus, the process initiated in pursuance to that order should not be impeded by the subsequent judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court whatever be the ultimate result of further proceedings to be filed by the Government in that behalf. Insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, we are informed that the appointments of Members have not been made and in view of the judgment the process would depen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. On consideration of the importance of filling up of the vacancies, we are of the view that the timeline and processes fixed by us must continue as in some of the cases the appointments have been made and in others the appointment process is at an advance stage. Thus, the process initiated in pursuance to that order should not be impeded by the subsequent judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court whatever be the ultimate result of further proceedings to be filed by the Government in that behalf. 18. Therefore, what was sought to be protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 22.10.2021 is only action taken prior to that date, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.08.2021. 19. In the cases on hand, we find that no notification was even issued by the State of Tamil Nadu as on 22.10.2021. The earliest notification calling for applications for the post of President and Members of the District Forum was made on 19.12.2021, i.e., after the order dated 22.10.2021. The impugned notifications have been made on 17.07.2022. It should be pointed out at this juncture at the risk of repetition that both these notifications were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of India and is published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum. 22. The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act, whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.(emphasis spplied) 24. If the said position is accepted, we have to necessarily conclude that the impugned notifications are bad and they have to be accordingly quashed. If the notifications are bad and they are liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
