http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ASHISH HANDA, ADVOCATE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA &

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SINGH N.P. (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1308            1996 SCC  (3) 145  JT 1996 (3)   248        1996 SCALE  (2)771

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T J.S. VERMA. J.      The petitioner  is an  Advocate and a member of the Bar Association of  the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He filed a Writ  Petition in  the High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana challenging the  appointment of Shri M.R.Agnihotri, a former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the President of the Haryana  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on completion of  the term  of Shri  S,S.Sandhewalia, a  former Chief Justice  of the  High Court, with effect from June 30, 1994.  The  challenge  was  made  on  the  ground  that  the appointment of Shri M.R.Agnihotri was not in accordance with Section 16  of the  Consumer Protection  Act,  1986  and  in consonance with  the principles applicable or making such an appointment. That  writ petition (C.W.P.No.7067 of 1994) was transferred to  this Court  for decision,  in  view  of  the importance of the question involved.      The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes in Section 16 for the composition of the State Commission as under :      "Composition    of     the    State      Commission    -(1)    Each    State      Commission shall consist of-      (a) a  person who  is or has been a      Judge of a High Court, appointed by      the State  Government who  shall be      its President:      1[Provided  that   no   appointment      under this  clause  shall  be  made      except after  consultation with the      Chief Justice of the High Court;]      (b) two other members, who shall be      persons of  ability, integrity  and      standing    and    have    adequate      knowledge or experience of, or have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    shown  capacity  in  dealing  with,      problems  relating   to  economics,      law,     commerce,     accountancy,      industry,   public    affairs    or      administration, one  of whom  shall      be a woman:      2[Provided that  every  appointment      made under  this  clause  shall  be      made by the State Government on the      recommendation   of   a   selection      committee   consisting    of    the      following, namely-      (i)   President    of   the   State      Commission Chairman.      (ii)   Secretary    of   the    Law      Department of the State - Member.      (iii)   Secretary,    incharge   of      Department  dealing  with  consumer      affairs in the State - Member.]      (2) The  salary or  honorarium  and      other allowances  payable  to,  and      the other  terms and  conditions of      service 1[***]  of, the  members of      the State  Commission shall be such      as may  be prescribed  by the State      Government.      2[3)  Every  member  of  the  State      Commission shall  hold Office for a      term of five years or up to the age      of sixty-seven  years, whichever is      earlier and  shall not  be eligible      for re-appointment.      (4)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained  in  sub-section  (3),  a      person appointed  as a President or      as a member before the commencement      of    the    Consumer    Protection      (Amendment)   Act,    1993,   shall      continue to  hold  such  office  as      President or  member, as  the  case      may be,  till the completion of his      term.]      -----------------------      1.   Ommitted   by   the   Consumer      Protection  (Amendment)  Act,  1993      (w.e.f.18th June, 1993).      2. Inserted by ibid". We  are,  in  this  matter  concerned,  primarily  with  the requirement of Section 16(1)(a) which prescribes the mode of appointment of the President of the State Commission.      The Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 is an Act to provide for better  protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose  to make  provision for  the  establishment  of consumer councils  and other  authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith’. The  National  Commission,  the  State  Commission  and  the District Forum  are established  as  the  agencies  for  the redressal of  consumer disputes  by Section  9 of  the  Act. Section 10  of the  Act  provides  for  composition  of  the District Forum,  Section 16  for the  State  Commission  and Section 20  for the  National Commission. The scheme is that these three  agencies constituted  for redressal of consumer disputes at  different levels have as its President a person who is, or has been a Judge at the corresponding level. This is so  because the  function of  these agencies is primarily

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the adjudication  of consumer  disputes  and,  therefore,  a person from the judicial branch is considered to be suitable for the  office of  the President.  The appointment  to  the office of  the President  of the  State Commission  is to be made only  after consultation  with the Chief Justice of the High Court’  and to  the office  of  the  President  of  the National  Commission   after  consultation  with  the  Chief Justice  of   India’.  Such   a  provision  requiring  prior consultation with  the Chief  Justice is  obviously for  the reason that he is the most suitable person to know about the suitability of  the person  to be appointed as the President of the  Commission. The  provisions in  Section 16(1)(a) for appointment of  the President of the State Commission and in Section 20(1)(a)  for appointment  of the  President of  the National Commission  are in  Pari materia  and  have  to  be similarly construed.  The construction  of  the  proviso  in Section 16(1)(a)  and that  in Section  20(1)(a) must be the same because of the identity of the language. The expression after consultation  with the Chief Justice of the High Court and after consultation with the Chief Justice of India  must be construed  in the  same manner  as the  expression  after consultation with  the Chief  Justice of  India,   the Chief Justice of the High Court in Article 217 of the Constitution of  India   made  in   Supreme   Court   Advocates-on-Record Association and  Ors. Vs.  Union of India. (1993(4)SCC 441). Accordingly, the  opinion of  the Chief  Justice of the High Court and the requirement of consultation with him according to the proviso in Section 16(1)(a) must have the same status as that  of the  Chief Justice  of the  High  Court  in  the appointment of  a High  Court Judge under Article 217 of the Constitution of India; and the process of appointment to the office of the President of the State Commission must also be similar. It  is unnecessary  to restate  the same  which  is summarized in  the majority  opinion in  the Judges-II  case (supra). This  is necessary  to maintain independence of the judiciary and  to avoid  any possibility  of a  sitting or a retired  Judge  depending  on  the  executive  for  such  an appointment. Our attention was drawn to certain observations in Sarwan  Singh Lamba  & Ors.  Vs. Union  of India  & Ors., ((1995)4 SCC  546), to suggest that the name for appointment to the  Administrative Tribunal may be suggested even by the executive which  may  have  the  effect  of  initiating  the proposal. In  the facts of that case, substantial compliance of the requirement of approval by the Chief Justice of India was found  proved  and,  therefore,  the  appointments  were upheld. The  requirement  of  consultation  with  the  Chief Justice in  the proviso  to  Section  16(1)(a)  and  Section 20(1)(a) of  the Consumer  Protection Act  being similar  to that in  Article  217,  the  principles  enunciated  in  the majority opinion  in  the  Judges-II  case  must  apply,  as indicated earlier,  even for  initiating the  proposal.  The executive is expected to approach the Chief Justice when the appointment is  to be  made for taking the steps to initiate the proposal,  and the procedure followed should be the same as for  appointment of  a High  Court Judge. That would give greater credibility to the appointment made.      The question  now is  :  whether  there  has  been  due compliance  of  the  proviso  to  Section  16(1)(a)  of  the Consumer Protection  Act in  the present case? The affidavit dated 9th  July, 1994  of Shri B.L. Gulati, Registrar of the High Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  mentions  the  procedure adopted in  making the  appointment of Shri M.R.Agnihotri, a retired Judge  of the  High Court  as the  President of  the Haryana State  Commission.  It  is  stated  that  the  Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana considered the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

names of  certain retired  Judges of  that  High  Court  and ultimately gave  his consent  for the  appointment  of  Shri M.R.Agnihotri as the President of the State Commission which was communicated  by the Registrar to the Haryana Government on 10th June, 1994, after which the appointment of Shri M.R. Agnihotri was  made. In  the facts  of the  present case, we find that there was substantial compliance of the proviso to Section 16(1)(a)  of the  Act and  the appointment  of  Shri M.R.Agnihotri was  made after  consultation with  the  Chief Justice of  the High  Court. However,  we may  add that  the appropriate course  to adopt,  as indicated in the Judges-II case, is for the Chief Justice of the High Court to initiate the proposal  and to  mention the  name approved  by him for appointment instead  of the Chief Justice only approving the name suggested  by the State Government. It appears from the affidavit of  the  Registrar  that  the  Chief  Justice  had indicated to  the  State  Government  the  proper  procedure relating to  initiation of  the proposal  for filling up the post and  he has accorded his approval to the appointment of Shri M,R.Agnihotri  only after  considering  several  names, including that  of Shri  M.R.Agnihotri. The appointment made in the  present case  does  not,  therefore,  call  for  any interference.      Consequently, the transferred case is dismissed.