Mumbai: Filling the long-delayed vacancies in the state and various district consumer commissions, meant to smoothen their functioning, once again went into limbo. On Friday, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court effectively nullified part of the examination process and the selection committee responsible for appointing presidents and members to these commissions. Presidents and members are essential to establish the quorum for the functioning of these commissions.
The High Court invalidated the rule that led to the formation of the selection committee and the subsequent process of filling vacancies. It held that parts of the examination process conducted by the state deviated from the Supreme Court directives, making them "without jurisdiction" and unsustainable. The court further stated that re-appointment of existing presidents and members should be done according to the old rules without an examination, and annulled the rules related to a four-year tenure. Although the court has stayed its order for four weeks, experts say that the functioning of the commissions will be in a state of confusion unless the Supreme Court delivers a decisive judgment. Vacancies have severely affected the functioning of various commissions, bringing them to a virtual standstill, especially in Mumbai, where they have been barely operational, relying on temporary staff. The appointments were supposed to bring relief to numerous consumers who have been waiting endlessly for their cases to be heard.
State commission had formally welcomed the newly appointed members
Embarrassingly, the court's order came hours after the state commission formally welcomed the newly appointed members, who had been working for almost a week. The state government had given presidents and members 15 days to assume office, which ended on Friday, leading many, including district commissions, to assume office and start work. Dr. Tushar Mandlekar, a senior advocate representing the petitioner, advocate Mahendra Limaye, stated, 'The advertisement and the recruitment process for members and presidents are held to be illegal in today's order. According to me, the appointments are null and void. The state may want to appeal to the Supreme Court, so the stay is for four weeks, but in my opinion, they cannot continue. The state should not have devised its own procedure.'
Ironically, Limaye, who had been selected as the president of the Bhandara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission according to the state government's Government Resolution (GR), remarked, 'We wanted the supremacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments, which was upheld by the court today.' The court in its order observed that selection committee with two executives and one judicial person as per rules of the centre were taking away from judiciary by “diluting the involvement of the judiciary in the process of appointment of members of the Tribunals amounting to an encroachment by the executive on the judiciary”, and thus reducing its "dominance” that was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers" as was ruled by the Supreme Court earlier. It said, "the doctrine of separation of powers is violated. The Committee in its present form gives primacy to the Executive and the Chairperson of the Committee is placed in a minority in the Selection Committee. The opinion of the Chairperson alone therefore would not be binding on the State Government. The law in
this regard being well settled it was obvious that the constitution of the
Selection Committee as prescribed by Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 was liable to be set aside."
Mandlekar added that their next petition on Monday would seek the quashing of the entire examination process. The High Court stated that although conducting portions of Paper II of the examination in Marathi to check proficiency in the language was "laudable," without the authority to do so, it was "without jurisdiction." The court's order provides relief to some sitting members who had sought re-appointment without an examination. The court also invalidated the four-year selection period.
'This order renders all appointments void. They have been given four weeks to approach the Supreme Court for a stay. Even if a stay is granted, uncertainty will loom over the heads of the presidents and members until the matter is finally decided, leading to chaos and confusion. Parties will not push for hearings. If the final order deems the appointments flawed, past hearings and orders will become null and void. The government is on shaky ground, and a better option would be not to challenge the ruling but to come up with amended rules with retrospective effect. Ultimately, consumers are subjected to hardships that could have been avoided,' said advocate Shirish Deshpande, chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, a consumer body.
Senior officials from the state government did not respond to calls and messages from FPJ. A junior officer mentioned that they are yet to receive instructions.
