https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305814 The Supreme Court held that consultation with an Acting Chief Justice complies with Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act for appointments. The court distinguished between constitutional and statutory consultation requirements, affirming the validity of the Acting Chief Justice's role in the appointment process. The appointment of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was deemed valid, emphasizing that the Acting Chief Justice's consultation sufficed, dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court's decision. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Dec 2022 15:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305814 The Supreme Court held that consultation with an Acting Chief Justice complies with Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act for appointments. The court distinguished between constitutional and statutory consultation requirements, affirming the validity of the Acting Chief Justice's role in the appointment process. The appointment of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was deemed valid, emphasizing that the Acting Chief Justice's consultation sufficed, dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court's decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305814