Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
State of Haryana and Anr. v. National Consumer Awareness Group and Ors.
(2005) 5 SCC 284: AIR 2005 SC 2356
JUDGES: B.N. Srikrishna and K.G. Balakrishnan
Date of Decision: 04-05-2005
FACTS:-
Justice Amarjeet Chaudhary, the then incumbent was to demit his office on completion of his term as President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’). The Chief Minister of Haryana addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court drawing his attention to the vacancy that was likely to arise, and expressed his view that Justice R.S. Mongia would be a suitable incumbent to be appointed to the said post and requested for communication of the views of the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Chief Justice informed the Chief Minister that the collegium of the High Court unanimously decided to recommend Justice R.C. Kathuria as most suitable and fit for appointment as President of the State Commission. The Chief Minister, Haryana, raised certain objections to the proposal made by the Chief Justice. The High Court after calling for several records and considering various other aspects of the matter reiterated its stand that there was no reason to recall the earlier recommendations to appoint Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retired) as the President of the State Commission. By another letter, the Chief Minister of Haryana drew the attention of the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court to the newly introduced Section 16(1A), vide (Amendment) Act 62 of 2002, and stated that since the post of the President of the State Commission was vacant at the moment, a Hon’ble sitting Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was required to be nominated to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee to be constituted under Section 16(1A). Department of Consumer Affairs, issued a clarification that the procedure contemplated for constitution of a Selection Committee would be equally applicable for appointment of the President of the State Commission, though for that purpose the Chief Justice of the High Court be requested to nominate a sitting Judge of the High Court to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee.
ISSUE:-
What is the content of the statutory consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court postulated under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
JUDGMENT:-
Section 16(1) of the Act provides for the composition of the State Commission including the appointment of the President and members of the State Commission. By a further amendment, vide (Amendment) Act 62 of 2002, Section 16(1)(b) was substituted by new provision of Sub-sections (1A) and (1B) which were inserted in Section 16. The amended Section 16, brought into force with effect from 15.3.2003. It is inconceivable that Sub-section (1A) is intended for appointment of the President of the State Commission itself. The contention that the Chairman of the State Commission, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court, can be selected by a Selection Committee comprising two Secretaries of the State Government cannot get judicial assent because it would be erosive of judicial independence if such interpretation is given to Sub-section (1A). This conclusion is driven home by the proviso to Sub-section (1A). This proviso is intended to take care of a contingency where there exists a President of the State Commission, who is unable to Chair the Selection Committee meeting because of absence or other similar reasons. It is only in such a situation, that the State Government may request the Chief Justice of the High Court to nominate a sitting Judge to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee.
A literal reading of Subsection (1A) may prima facie suggest that appointments under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) are also governed by the procedure contemplated therein, under Sub-section (1A), but the two sub-sections have to be harmoniously construed. The procedure contemplated under Sub-section (1A) can apply only in respect of appointment of members falling within the contemplation of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16. On the question of interpretation of the newly introduced Section 16(1A), there was no conflict between the provisions of Sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1A) of the Act as they could effectively operate in their respective fields, which did not overlap. The provisions of Section 16(1A) would have hardly any, much less an effective, role in the appointment of the President of the State Commission in terms of Section 16(1)(a), and that the Selection Committee contemplated by Section 16(1A) could not be utilized for the selection of the President for which a separate provision was made under Section 16(1)(a).
HELD:-
The procedure as contemplated under sub-section (1A) applies only in respect of appointments of members falling within the contemplation of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 and there exists no conflict between the provisions of Sections 16(1A) and 16(1)(a) of the Act.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
