Partly allowed

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2021WP/102372/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed a notification that prescribed priority for District Judges over eligible Advocates in the selection of Presidents of District Consumer Forums. The court held that under Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, all three categories are mutually exclusive with no priority among them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned condition prescribing priority for District Judges is quashed; a writ of mandamus directs respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application within three months.

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.113577/2019(GM-RES) C/w. WRIT PETITION NO.103124/2016(GM-CON), WRIT PETITION NO.102372/2017(GM, RES).

¶6

IN W.P.NO.113577/2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI.ONKARASA S/O ISHWARASA BASAVA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KALASAPUR ROAD, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582 101.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI O.I.BASAVA PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. IIIRD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., JUSTICE, LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED U/SEC 10 (1) A OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986) BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 7)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER TO PARTLY QUASH IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION (IN THIS NOTIFICATION 1(A)(II) IS ONLY QUASH) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 DATED 04.06.2019 ANNEXUREA1 BEARING REF-NO.KSC/ADM/10/2019 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 ON DATED 29.08.2019 ANNEXUREC BEARING REF-NO.KSC/ADM/10/2019-20 AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS RE-CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER APPLICATION ANNEXURE-B DATED 10.07.2019 TO APPOINT PETITIONER AS THE PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IN ANY OF THE EXISTING VACANCIES IN KARNATAKA STATE DISTRICTS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FURTHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS ISSUE FRESH SELECTED CANDIDATES LIST FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT OF CONSUMER DISTRICT FORUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

IN W.P.NO.103124/2016

¶25

BETWEEN

¶26

SRI.ONKARASA S/O ISHWARASA BASAVA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KALASAPUR ROAD, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI O.I.BASAVA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶29

¶30

AND

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. IIIRD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., JUSTICE, LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED

¶37

¶38

U/SEC 10 (1) A OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986) BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶39

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶40

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KSCMF BUILDING, ANNEXE NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶41

….RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 7) (BY SRI SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER AT ANNEXURE-J DATED 26.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8 AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 27.06.2015 AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7 TO RECONSIDERING THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION (ANNEXURE-B) TO APPOINT PETITIONER AS THE PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IN ANY OF THE EXISTING VACANCIES IN KARNATAKA STATE DISTRICTS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶44

¶45

IN WRIT PETITION NO.102372/2017 BETWEEN

¶46

SRI.ONKARASA S/O ISHWARASA BASAVA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: KALASAPUR ROAD, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.

¶47

...PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI O.I.BASAVA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶49

AND

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. IIIRD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶51

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., JUSTICE, LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶52

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶53

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶54

¶55

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶56

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED U/SEC 10 (1) A OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986) BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶57

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, BASAVA BHAVAN, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶58

…..RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 7)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 05.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 6 AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 6 ON 20.01.2017 AT ANNEXURE-B AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER SELECT CANDIDATES LIST OF PRESIDENTS OF DISTRICT FORUM POST ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. (RESPONDENT NO.3) I.A.NO.2/2017 (ANNEXURE-G-3 IN THIS LETTER

¶61

¶62

RESPONDENT NO.7 STATED THAT W.P.NO.5734/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AT BENGALURU AND INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY SAME COURT HENCE LETTER OF SELECTED CANDIDATES LIST OF PRESIDENTS OF DISTRICT FORUM POST ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. (RESPONDENT NO.3) NOT GIVEN TO PETITIONER) AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION ANNEXURE-D TAKE INTERVIEW AND TO APPOINT PETITIONER AS THE PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IN ANY OF THE EXISTING VACANCIES IN KARNATAKA STATE DISTRICTS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶63

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

In this writ petition, the petitioner is sought for

¶66

the following reliefs:

¶67

I. Issue certiorari or any other writ or order in favour of petitioner to partly quash impugned notification (in this notification 1(A)(ii) is only quash) issued by the respondent no.7 dated 04.06.2019 Annexure-A1 bearing REFNO.KSC/ADM/10/2019.

¶68

II. Quash the impugned notification issued by respondent No.7 on dated

¶69

¶70

29.08.2019 Annexure-C bearing REFNO.KSC/ADM/10/2019-20.

¶71

III. A writ of mandamus may be issued against respondents and directing the respondents re-considering the petitioner application Annexure-B dated 10.07.2019 to appoint petitioner as the President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in any of the existing vacancies in Karnataka State Districts strictly in accordance with law.

¶72

IV. Further a writ of mandamus may be issued against respondents and directing the respondents issue fresh selected candidates list for the post of president of consumer district forum in accordance with law.

¶73

Heard Sri O.I.Basava-petitioner party-in-

¶74

person and learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶75

In addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by

¶76

¶77

the petitioner, petitioner party-in-person invites my attention to the Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to contend that the following persons are eligible/qualified to become the President of a District Consumer Forum i.e., (i) A person who is a District Judge (ii) person who is a retired/resigned District Judge, (iii) Person who is qualified to be a District Judge. It is submitted that insofar as category No.I and Category No.II are concerned, a sitting District Judge or retired/resigned District Judge are qualified/eligible to hold the post of the President of District Consumer Forum. Similarly Category No.III which is separate and distinct category comprises of persons who are qualified to be a District Judge i.e., lawyers with not less than seven years experience, who would be entitled to be hold the post of a District Judge.

¶78

It is contended that all the aforesaid three categories viz., (i) a person who is presently a sitting

¶79

¶80

District Judge, (ii) a retired/resigned District Judge, (iii) person who is qualified to be District Judge, are mutually independent and exclusive of one another and a person falling in any of the aforesaid 3 categories is qualified to hold the post of District President. It is contended that under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act, 1986 no priority can given to any of the 3 categories interse and persons belonging to any one category cannot claim priority over other categories in the matter or manner of selection to the post of the President of a District Consumer Forum.

¶81

In this context, my attention is invited to the SD/- impugned notification at *Annexure-A1 dated 04.06.2019 in order to point out Clause A(ii) which prescribes and stipulates priority in favour of a sitting District Judge or a retired/resigned District Judge over an eligible Advocate is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Section 10(1)(A) of the Act, 1986 and the

¶82

Sd/- * Corrected vide Court order dated 18-2-2022

¶83

¶84

same being violative and ultra vires the said provision deserves to be quashed.

¶85

It is also submitted that under these circumstances, the petitioner’s application at Annexure-B dated 10.07.2019 was not considered favourably by the respondents and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶86

Per contra , learned HCGP on behalf of all respondents submits in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of

¶87

objections submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be rejected.

¶88

As rightly contended by the petitioner-party-

¶89

in-person as per Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986, there are three clear distinct, different, independent, separate and mutually exclusive categories of persons entitled to hold the post of President of a District Consumer Forum i.e., (i) sitting District Judges (ii)

¶90

¶91

Retired/Resigned District Judges, and (iii) persons who are eligible to become District Judge i.e., Advocates with an experience of not less than seven years. As a natural and obvious corollary, persons in any one category can not have priority over persons over other categories.

¶92

The material on record indicates that the petitioner herein having been enrolled in the year2004 (16.04.2004) has completed seven years practice and has seven years experience and accordingly, he is eligible to hold the post of the President of the District Consumer Forum. Under these circumstances, the impugned notification at Annexure-A1, clause A(ii) prescribing and stipulating priority in favour of sitting District Judges and Retired/Resigned District Judges is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in contravention of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act, 1986 and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶93

In the result, I pass the following:

¶94

¶95

ORDER

¶96

i. The petition is allowed.

¶97

ii. The impugned condition 1A(ii) at AnnexureA1 dated 04.06.2019 to the extent that it prescribes and stipulates priority in favour of the District Judges and Retired/Resigned District Judges is hereby quashed.

¶98

iii. A writ of mandamus is issued against the concerned respondents and directing the concerned respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application at Annexure-B dated 10.07.2019 in accordance with law and take appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶99

In view of disposal of Writ Petition

¶100

No.113577/2019, the other connected Writ Petition No.103124/2016 and Writ Petition No.102372/2017 are disposed off.

¶101

Sd/JUDGE

¶102

CKK

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Veena W/O. Mahantesh Vs Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Shankargoud S/O Ramangouda Vs Managing Director

The Housing Commissioner Vs Smt.Analabai W/O Basalingappa Ballari

Sri. Onkarasa S/O Ishwarasa Basava Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mumatazbegum W/O Babusab Jamadar Vs Vazirsab S/O Dadamiya Jamadar

Sri.Oba Reddy Suresh S/O Oba Reddy Siddanagouda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer