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

The court quashed the notifications issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the appointment of Members in the Consumer Redressal Commissions, as they ... Appointment as Member in the District Consumer Redressal Commission in the State of Tamil Nadu - notification dated 17.07.2022. 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 and as such the notifications issued based on the non-existent rule is bad in law. HELD THAT:- It is found 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 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 proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS VERSUS MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE AND ORS. [2023 (3) TMI 1379 - SUPREME COURT] would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not suspended the operation of the judgement of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court pending the said Special Leave Petition, which was later converted into Civil Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2023. It is thus concluded that the Rules relating to experience viz., Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) were not in the statute book on the date when the impugned notifications were issued by the State. Therefore, the candidates who did not satisfy the required experience as per the Rules which were struck down were disabled or prevented from applying. The affirmation of the judgement of the Bombay High Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.03.2023 would made things worse for the respondents. The law is settled to the effect that once a provision of the Central Law or a Rule is held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the entire Nation and it cannot be said that it would not be valid within the jurisdiction of the particular High Court and it would be valid in other areas. This position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT]. The impugned notifications are quashed. The State Government will take appropriate action to make appointments afresh 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 - Petition allowed. 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.