Appeal filed before Supreme Court against Bombay High Court decision to quash rules on selection of consumer forum members

The Supreme Court Friday issued notice on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to strike down rules for the appointment of members to consumer dispute redressal commissions [Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and ors vs Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and ors]..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will hear the matter on November 24, An interim stay granted by the High Court on its order will continue until then, the top court said..In effect, the members who were appointed under the rules quashed by the High Court would remain protected until then."The issues which have been raised by the petitioner would require further deliberation ... Since the persons who are working at present would stand to be removed as a consequence of the impugned judgment of the High Court, we direct that the interim stay which was granted by the High Court shall continue to remain in operation till 24 November 2023," the Supreme Court said..The top court was hearing appeals arising out of a Bombay High Court judgment from October.By this judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the High Court had struck down Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection Rules which had dealt with the constitution of the selection committee for appointing president and members of the State and District Consumer Commissions..Rule 6 stipulates that the president and members of the State Commission and the District Commission can be appointed on the recommendation of a selection committee.It also lays down the composition of the selection committee and specifies that it shall have the Chief Justice of the High Court or any judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice as the chairperson. However, the selection committee would also comprise the secretary in-charge of consumer affairs of the State government and a nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State government as members.The High Court had reasoned that the same results in excessive executive interference in the appointment of the president and members of the State and District Commissions and dilutes the involvement of the judiciary in the process.The High Court's judgment was passed on a petition filed Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, who also challenged notifications dated April 10, 2023, and June 13, 2023, by which a Selection Committee was constituted.Since Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 was quashed, the High Court had also struck down the notifications making appointment. .Supreme Court rejects review petition against decision to quash Rule requiring 20 years experience to be State consumer forum member.This decision has now been challenged before the Supreme Court. It was argued before the top court that consumer disputes redressal fora are different from other tribunals. Hence, the appointment of two government members in the selection committee is justified.In other tribunals, the State is interested in the outcome of the litigation being a contesting party. However, in consumer fora this is not the case as the litigation is largely between private consumers, the appellants pointed out. The matter is slated to be heard on November 24. .Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar appeared for the appellants, led by one Ganesh Selukar.Advocates Tushar Mandlekar, Anju Thomas, Mantika Haryani, Muskan Surana, Rajat Srivastav, and Vinod Khera appeared for the petitioner before the High Court (respondent before the Supreme Court), Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye.Advocate Uday Warunjikar appeared for the Maharashtra government on caveat..[Read order]