The Madras High Cour tin the case V Sundararaj v. The Registrar General and others observed and has set aside two notification which is being issued by the Tamil Nadu’s Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department wherein the applications are invited for appointment as Members in the District Consumer Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The court in the case observed that the said notification was based on Rules which are already struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
The bench comprising of Maduari bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice L Victoria Gowri in the case observed and has noted that the notifications were based on Consumer Protection, the 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 which was already struck down on the date of the notification.
In the present case, the notification was challenged by V Sundararaj, wherein it is submitted that the Rules were declared to be ultra vires the constitution by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on 14.09.2021 itself especially Rule 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) which related to requirement of experience and gave sweeping powers to the Selection committee.
It has also been submitted by him that the judgement of the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court on March 3 in this year and thus, when the court upheld the striking down of rules, the entire procedure which relates to recruitment of non-judicial members in the consumer forums all over the State is vitiated.
It has also been stated by the State submitted while countering his arguments that the notification in the case were issued as per the orders of the Supreme Court in the year 2021 in a suo moto writ proceeding to monitor the actions of State Governments in order to fill up vacancies in the consumer For a.
The court in the case observed and has reiterated that once the rule of the Central law or rule was upheld to be unconstitutional by the High Court, thus, the same would stand effected from the statue book in respect of the whole nation.
Accordingly, the court set aside the same while finding the impugned notification to be bad.
The counsel, Advocates, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Mr.D.Venkatachalam appeared for the petitioner.
The counsels, Advocates, Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Malaiyendran, Central Government Standing Counsel represented the respondent.