TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....18015 of 2022 Mr.V.Malaiyendran, Central Government Standing Counsel for R3 in WP.(MD)No.17210 of 2022 for R4 in 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 bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Gazette on 15th July 2020 and they were to come into force on and from 20th July 2020. The 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 les....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....District Commission Rules, 2020 ultra vires. It is not in dispute that while dismissing 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 revivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le us to examine the impact of the said judgment and pass necessary directions. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould 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. 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 repe....