Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer order of a Consumer Forum President from Ganjam to Jajpur, holding the challenge regarding lack of selection committee recommendation unsustainable and non-existent.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated; no inference needed on the impugned transfer order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.3039 of 2006
4. 10.8.2016 None appears for the petitioner.
The order of transfer dated 20.12.2005(Annexure-3A) is under challenge.
The petitioner, who was working as President, District Consumer Disput
es Redressal Forum, Ganjam, was transferred as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Jajpur. He has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that there is no recomm
endation of the selection committee which is required in view of the provision as contained in
Section 10(1)(A) and 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. This order is challenged on the grou
nd of jurisdiction when there is no recommendation by the selection committee, the authority h
as got no power to transfer the President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Opposite party-State has filed counter affidavit which has been received by l
earned counsel for the petitioner on 18.4.2006 but no rejoinder has been filed. In the count
er affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative gro
und since there is complaint against him for irregularities and his matter was placed before t
he selection committee as would be evident from Annexure-A/1 and the selection committee has r
ecommended his transfer as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jajpur.
It has been stated that the order of transfer iks without any jurisdic
tion or contrary to the statutory rule or has been passed by way of mala fide exercise of powe
r, but after goving through the averments made in the writ petition, no such ground has been r
aised by the petitioner . It is the selection committee who has recommended to transfer the
petitioner from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam to the District Consum
er Disputes Redressal Forum, Jajpur, hence the ground taken by the petitioner regarding jurisd
iction is not found to be sustainable.
Accordingly, the order impugned as contained in Annexure-3 dated 20.12
.2005 needs no inference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
The interim order dated 6.3.2006 stands vacated.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the transfer order of the President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is valid in absence of recommendation by the selection committee.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
None
State
None
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court