Appointment of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission members: Bombay High Court holds back results of selection process

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed that the selection process initiated for the appointment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission members would be subject to the final result of the petitions challenging the process..A Bench of Justices SB Shukre and AS Kilor further directed that the result of the interviews already conducted or those that are scheduled in the future for the appointment of State Commission members "shall not be declared without prior permission of the court". .The interim order was passed in two pleas challenging the validity of 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 (Rules)..The Rules govern the appointment of the President and members to State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions..Two pleas were filed challenging the Rules. One writ petition was filed by one Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye before the Nagpur Bench and a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Vijaykumar Bhima Dige before the Principal Bench..However, since both petitions dealt with an identical issue, and given that the petition filed at Nagpur Bench was filed earlier, both petitions were heard together by the Nagpur Bench..Both petitions were initially fixed for final hearing on Wednesday, considering that the interviews for appointments had commenced from June 28, 2021. .The State submitted that it does not have much to say since the Rules under challenge have been notified by the Central government. The Centre, on the other hand, sought a week's time to respond..While the Court granted the adjournment sought by the Centre, it also observed that it has to balance the interest of all parties. As such, the Court granted the petitioners interim relief until the matter is taken up for final disposal. .The petitioners had approached the High Court aggrieved by an advertisement issued to fill vacancies to the posts of President and members of the District and State Commissions of Maharashtra in February 2021..The petitions stated that till date, the procedure of making recommendation for these posts has not been determined by the appropriate committee, despite directions issued by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association..Through another judgment in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the apex court had directed that the tribunal rules should be amended to make advocates with an experience of at least 10 years eligible for appointment as judicial members..In his petition, Limaye also prayed for the introduction of a personal interview round along with the written examination as part of the selection process..Advocate Tushar Mandlekar appeared for Limaye. Advocates Uday Warunjikar and Sumit Kate appeared for Dige. .Government Pleader Ketki Joshi appeared for the State. Assistant Solicitor General UM Aurangabadkar appeared for Centre..[Read order]