Nagpur:-The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the terms of the President and Members of the Maharashtra State Commission as well as the District Commissions, formed under the Consumer Protection Act, who are due to retire shortly, till March 1, 2023.
A Bench of Justice Shah and MM Sundresh passed the interim order after it was informed by counsel for the respondents Dr Tishar Mandlekar that many members of the Consumer Forums in Maharashtra were due to retire in January / February 2023. The Court wanted to ensure that the litigants are not troubled in any way owing to this.
The Supreme Court was hearing special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) that quashed certain provisions of Consumer Protection Rules, excluding lawyers with 10 to 20 years of experience from appointments to Consumer Commissions.
The Supreme Court has on last date directed the Attorney General to come up with Rules and Regulations for selection of the candidates to be appointed as Members and President in State/ District Commissions.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 08-12-2022, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani informed that Union Government can not consider conducting examination in selection process for various reasons.
The Supreme Court immediately rejected this approach of the UOI and said that UOI should seriously consider about having examination for selection of posts to have fairness and transparency in appointments.
The AG said that The Central Government is currently, in touch with the states for deliberations and would come back with a final proposal regarding rules on the appointment of persons to the Consumer Forums and sought the adjournment.
Rules 2020 are an attempt to circumvent Supreme Court’s directions and hence can not be sustained in present form.
Case Title: The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs versus Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 19492/2021, State of Maharashtra versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others SLP(c) 20135/2021, State of Maharashtra versus Vijaykumar Bhima Dhige SLP(c) 19888/2021.
Attorney General of India Adv. Venkatramani argued for Union of India. Adv Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for State of Maharashtra. Dr. Tushar Mandlekar assisted by Adv Mantika Hariyani appeared for original petitioner Dr. Mahindra Limaye. Adv. Dr. Uday Warunjkar {Mumbai} appeared for Vijay Dighe.
