Sri. Vasanthakumara. S Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. VASANTHAKUMARA. S S/O OF SANNE GOWDA AGED AROUND 45 YEARS IN CHARGE PRESIDENT OF MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401.

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT SAVITA B PATTANASHETTI W/O SHIVANAND AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WOMEN MEMBER OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION R.T.O.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577202.

¶12

SMT.NAINA ASHOK KAMTE W/O ASHOK KAMTE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WOMEN MEMBER OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR KANNDA KARWAR DISTRICT 581 301.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22750 WP No. 7747 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR-CUM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BASAVA BHAVANA HIGH GROUNDS BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED: 19.02.2025 AND 01.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR EXTENSION OF THEIR SERVICE FOR SECOND TERM AS MEMBERS OF VARIOUS DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM IN TERMS OF 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) (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-D1 TO D2 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:22750 WP No. 7747 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This Court, on 17.03.2025, passed the following interim order:

¶29

“Office objections are kept open.

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶31

Since it is stated by the petitioners that none of them have completed second term in office as members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and in view of the notification dated 15.09.2022 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), the petitioners are prima facie entitled for re-appointment for another term of four years.

¶32

In that view of the matter, interim relief as sought for is granted till the next date of hearing.

¶33

List this petition on 03.04.2025.”

¶34

Even, in one of the disposed of matters, in W.P.No.6232/2025 disposed of on 03.03.2025, this Court

¶35

directed the respondents to continue the services of the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22750 WP No. 7747 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

petitioner till the Selection Committee makes appropriate recommendation regarding the continuance of the petitioners as members of various District Forums in Karnataka.

¶39

In this writ petition, after the interim order passed by this Court and considering the order passed in W.P.No.6232/2025 disposed of on 03.03.2025, placed the matter before the Committee. In respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the Committee has recommended them for re-appointment. But, in respect of petitioner No.2 is concerned, the Committee rejected the representation for re-appointment on the assessment of the materials placed before the Committee.

¶40

Therefore, in reselect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have already been re-appointed. The prayer sought for by them does not survive for consideration.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22750 WP No. 7747 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In respect of the second petitioner is concerned, in

¶44

view of the Committee’s decision, which has been placed on record by the learned AGA, along with the memo, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted since her representation had already been rejected.

¶45

Therefore, there cannot be any direction to consider her representation. Therefore, in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to her to challenge the rejection of her representation before the competent authority, in accordance with law, if law permits.

¶46

With the above observations the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

CM

¶49

LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1

Sri. Vasanthakumara. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vasanthakumara. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H N Aruna Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanganabasayya Belavantarakanthi Vs the Commissioner

Sri.B. Hanumanthaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr K N Venkataswamy Reddy Vs K M Srinivasa Reddy S/O Late K C Munireddy Dead

Paramanand Patil Vs Union of India

Haleshappa S.L. Vs the Commissioner