Dismissed

Kum Thilaka M T v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2019WP/14298/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the constitution of a single-member bench by the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission as illegal under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench held that the statute permits single-member benches and rejected the petition as having no merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected by dismissing the challenge to the constitution of a single-member bench.

Kum Thilaka M T Vs the Chief Secretary — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.14298/2019 (GM-CON-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

KUM. THILAKA M T D/O THIRUNESH M P AGED 25 YEARS R/AT NO.4, INFANTRY ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 001

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI M C RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1.THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

2.THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI D NAGARAJ, AGA)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DECISION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSTITUTE A BENCH OF A SINGLE MEMBER PRESIDING IN A COURT AS A 'BENCH' BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE STATUTE DOES NOT PERMIT TO DO SO (UNDER SECTION 16(1B)(ii)).

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶23

The controversy in this petition which is in the nature of a public interest litigation in very narrow. The controversy involves interpretation of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1-B) of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the said Act of 1986’).

¶24

For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing Clause (ii) of sub-section (1-B) of Section 16 of the said Act of

¶25

1986, which reads thus:

¶26

“(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit.”

¶27

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for

¶28

the petitioner is that on a plain reading of clause (ii), it is apparent

¶29

¶30

that no member of the State Commission can sit single to decide the complaint/appeals and therefore, constituting a single member Bench is clearly illegal. He also invited our attention to subsection (1) of Section 16 which provides for composition of the State Commission. He pointed out that apart from the President, it provides for appointment of not less than two and not more than such number of members as may be prescribed having qualifications laid down in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act of 1986. He further pointed out that it is provided that not more than fifty per cent of the members shall be from amongst persons having a judicial background. He would, therefore, urge that considering the scheme of the said Act of 1986, it is obvious that a single member of the State Commission cannot be allowed to function and dispose of the matters. He submitted that a difficulty will arise if a woman member who does not have a judicial background is made to sit singly.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate relied

¶32

upon the interpretation of the word ‘with’ by the Apex Court in the case of A.K.RAGHUMANI SINGH AND OTHERS vs GOPAL

¶33

¶34

CHANDRA NATH AND OTHERS¹ and in particular, what is observed in paragraph 7. He also invited our attention to the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (for short ‘the said Regulations’) and in particular, Regulation 12.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the decision relied upon by the learned Additional Government Advocate supports his case.

¶36

We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Section 16 of the said Act of 1986 lays down the composition of the State Commission. It lays down the qualifications for the post of the President and members. Section 16 has nothing to do with the question whether a member sitting singly can exercise the powers of the State Commission. We have quoted clause (ii) of sub-section (1-B) of Section 16. It confers power on the President of the State Commission to constitute a Bench. The word ‘with’ used in Clause (ii), on its plain reading, cannot be interpreted to mean that a Bench has to be constituted of the President with one or more members. Clause (ii) authorises the President to constitute different Benches, some

¶37

1 (2000) 4 SCC 30

¶38

¶39

consisting of one member and some consisting of more than one members. Therefore, Clause (ii) of sub-section (1-B) of Section 16 confers power on the President of the State Commission to constitute Benches of the members sitting singly.

¶40

Perusal of the said Act of 1986 and in particular, Section 16 shows that the legislature has not made any distinction between the powers of a member who has a judicial background and the powers of a member who has no judicial background. The qualifications laid down in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 shows even those who have no judicial background, but are having adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration can be made a part of the Tribunal by appointing them as members. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that a single member Bench constituted as per the direction of the President cannot exercise the powers of the State Commission.

¶41

Regulation 12 of the said Regulations reads thus:

¶42

“ 12. Hearing by Benches. -Where a Bench, constituted by the President of the State Commission or the National Commission as provided under section

¶43

¶44

16 or section 20, as the case may be, does not have a member with judicial background and any complex question of law arises and there is no precedent to decide the law point, the Bench so constituted may refer the matter to the President of the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be to constitute another Bench of which the President shall be a member.”

¶45

Regulation 12 contemplates that if a member who does not have judicial background is required to decide a complex question of law which is not covered by any precedent, the Bench of the single member can refer the matter to the President of the State Commission for constituting another Bench in which the President is a member. This provision also shows that there can be a Bench of one member. Thus, when a member of the State Commission who has no legal background or judicial background is required to deal with a case where complex question of law arises which is not covered by any binding precedent, there is a provision for referring the case to the President. Thus, we do not agree with the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶46

We have carefully perused the decision of the Apex Court in A.K.RAGHUMANI SINGH ( supra ). The issue was of

¶47

¶48

interpreting the qualifications laid down to a particular post. In fact, in paragraph 7, the Apex Court held that the word ‘with’ has diverse meaning depending on the context in which it is used. In the present case, we have no manner of doubt that the word ‘with’ is not used in terms of what is suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for a long time, there was a practice of not allowing the members to sit singly. It is ultimately the discretion of the President. If the law permits constitution of a Bench of a single member, the long standing practice will not prevent the President to constitute a Bench consisting of a single member. Hence, we find no merit in the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

Kum Thilaka M T v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Thilaka M T v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ayyappa Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa Alias Shrinivasa Vs Chief Personnel Officer

The Gomala Samrakshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Industrial Area Vs Shivamma

Geo Consultancy Services Vs M/S Lakshmi Venkateshwara