2023 (7) TMI 252 - HC - Indian Laws

Court invalidates Tamil Nadu's Consumer Redressal Commission appointments due to unconstitutional rules. Fresh appointments required.

V. Sundararaj Versus The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to Government, The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to Government, The Secretary to Government, The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai. V. Sundararaj Versus The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to Government, The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to Government, The Secretary to Government, The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai

V. Sundararaj Versus The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to Government, The Registrar General, The Member-Convener, The Secretary to ... Issues Involved1. Effect of the Judgment of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Striking Down Certain Rules as Unconstitutional.2. Effect of the Directions Issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No.2 of 2021.SummaryIssue 1: Effect of the Judgment of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Striking Down Certain Rules as UnconstitutionalThe petitioners challenged the notifications dated 17.07.2022 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the appointment of Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The challenge was based on the grounds that the notifications were issued under the Central Rules of 2020, which included Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) that had been declared ultra vires the Constitution by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 14.09.2021. This judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.03.2023, thereby rendering the rules non-existent in the statute book. The petitioners argued that any notifications or actions taken under these invalid rules are void.The court noted that the Central Government framed the Consumer Protection Rules in 2020, which were challenged and struck down by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, and thus, the rules were not in force when the impugned notifications were issued. The court concluded that the notifications are invalid as they were issued under rules that were no longer in the statute book.Issue 2: Effect of the Directions Issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No.2 of 2021The State argued that the notifications were issued in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.No.2 of 2021, which aimed to ensure that the vacancies in the Consumer Fora were filled promptly. The Supreme Court had issued directions on 22.10.2021, stating that the process of appointments should continue despite the Nagpur Bench judgment. However, the court observed that the Supreme Court's order protected actions taken before 22.10.2021, whereas the impugned notifications were issued on 17.07.2022, after the Nagpur Bench judgment.The court found that the State of Tamil Nadu had delayed issuing notifications and had not complied with the Supreme Court's directions in a timely manner. Since the rules were struck down before the notifications were issued, the court held that the notifications are invalid.ConclusionThe court quashed the impugned notifications dated 17.07.2022 and directed the State Government to make fresh appointments in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others in Civil Appeal Nos.832 and 833 of 2023. The writ petitions were allowed, and the subsequent selection procedures were also declared invalid.