High court quashes appointment of consumer panel chairman

Chennai: The Madras high court has quashed the appointment of Justice N Kannadasan, a former additional judge of the court, as chairman of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Due consultation process, involving the state government and the chief justice of the Madras high court, had not taken place prior to Justice Kannadasan’s selection, a division bench said. “Consultation is required to be meaningful and not merely a lip service,” the bench said. Justice Kannadasan was appointed additional judge of the court in November 2003, but his initial two-year tenure was neither extended nor confirmed after November 2005. Unless additional judge is made permanent or his service is extended by the supreme court, he will cease to be a judge. Nearly a year after Kannadasan ceased to be a judge, the state government appointed him additional advocate-general. Earlier this year, the High Court included his name in the list of retired/former judges, leaving him eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of presiding officer/chairman of commissions and tribunals. On July 26, 2008 he was appointed chairman of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. A ‘quo warranto’ petition was filed against him by some advocates, seeking to show-cause under what authority he held the post. Other petitions challenged the validity of the government order appointing him as a retired judge. While the petitioners claimed that the services of Justice Kannadasan were not confirmed on grounds of unsuitability and that he was found wanting in intellectual and moral requirements to be a judge, the former judge said the petitions were motivated. The state government said he was selected because he alone could have served the entire period of five years as the chairman. A division bench comprising Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra and Justice A Kulasekaran, holding that the consultation process was not in accordance with law, said the proposal to appoint a chairman to the panel should have emanated from the chief justice and not the state government. Also, the proper course is for a chief justice to recommend the name of a sitting or a retired judge. The chief justice has failed to discharge an “onerous duty”, the bench said, adding that the present selection had become vulnerable due to non-consideration of vital facts that led to the non-confirmation of Justice Kannadasan in 2005.

"Loved reading this piece by G. ARAVINTHAN?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group