Plea in Bombay High Court challenges validity of Consumer Protection Rules 2020 governing appointments to Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court last week directed the Central and Maharashtra governments to respond to a petition challenging the validity of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which govern appointment of president and members to State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions..The petitioner, Dr Mahindra Limaye, a lawyer practising in Nagpur filed the petition challenging the the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020..The Rules provide for qualification for the post of president and members of the State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. It provide for a select committee which is a panel consisting of Chief Justice of the High Court, as well as Member Secretary of the Medical Education Department who has been nominated by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of the Consumer Affair Ministry.Limaye's petition stated that till date the procedure for making the recommendation has not been determined by the committee despite directions issued by the Supreme Court in this regard through judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association.Concerned over the bureaucratic and political interference in process of appointments of presidents/ non-judicial members and functioning of the commissions, the Supreme Court had underlined the necessity of conducting written test in order to select quality persons for the post of members of State and District Commissions.Through another judgment in the case of Madras Bar Association v Union of India, the apex court had directed that tribunal rules be amended to make advocates with an experience of at least 10 years eligible for appointment as judicial members in Tribunal.Limaye also prayed for introduction of a personal interview round along with the written examination..In the petition filed through advocate Tushar Mandlekar, it was stated that only lawyers with 20 years of practice should be considered for appointment as member in State Commission while for District Commission, only lawyers with 10 years experience or more should be considered. He added that the provision of conducting written test from the earlier Rules was deleted from the Rules of 2020."The tribunals no doubt will have retired District Judges, High Court Judges as the Presiding Officers but will have members of special standard, the Rules 2020 has widened the eligibility of the appointment of the member, who would otherwise have no judicial or legal experience", the petition said.Limaye approached the High Court through the present petition after being aggrieved by an advertisement issued for the posts of president and members of District and State Commissions of Maharashtra in February 2021.According to Limaye, the procedure for making the recommendation is yet to be determined by the Selection Committee..Limaye stated that the tribunal under the Consumer Protection Act is an alternate avenue to facilitate swift dispensation of justice through less formal procedures of adjudication.The District and State Commissions have more than 75,000 cases pending and it is important that persons having legal background should be given preference for the post of member, it was contended.