Anil Satyavijay Kilor JUDGMENT
Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J.
1. With great power comes great responsibility. In fact, power howsoever small or big comes with proportionate responsibility as they are complimentary to each other. Whenever the principle of proportionality is violated, the effect would be disastrous. It follows that, greater the power attached to any post, stricter the criteria must be for appointment to such post. The posts to which the Rules under challenge here apply, are the posts governed by this principle.
2. In these two petitions the grievance revolves around the criteria adopted for selection of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (for short 'the Act of 2019'), which according to the petitioners, is not analogous to the function and powers of Commissions, under the Act of 2019.
3. The facts giving rise to both these petitions, are as follows:
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi in exercise of the power conferred under Sections 29 and 43 read with clauses (n) and (w) of sub-section 2 of Section 101 of the Act of 2019, framed Rules, vide notification dated 15th July, 2020, called as Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2020 (In short "the Rules of 2020").
4. The Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules 2020 deal with the eligibility criteria seeking experience of not less than 20 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, for the post of Members of State Commission and experience in similar fields of not less than 15 years for the post of President and Members of District Commission. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2020, is in respect of procedure of appointment. Sub-rule 9 of Rule 6 permits the Selection Committee to determine its procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view the requirement of the State Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience.
5. In pursuance to Rule 6, the State of Maharashtra constituted a Selection Committee vide Government Resolution dated 6th November, 2020. Consequently, the applications were invited for the post of President and Members of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and District Consumer Redressal Commission under the Act of 2019. The said notice inviting applications gave cause to the respective petitioners to file these petitions.
6. The Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 was filed before the Principal Bench of this Court, at Bombay and the same was transferred to Nagpur Bench, to be heard along with pending Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021.
7. In Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 the following prayers are made:
A. The Public Interest Litigation may kindly be allowed;
B. This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the provisions in Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article