LexASHISH HANDA, ADVOCATE versus HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ASHISH HANDA, ADVOCATE v. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS. MARCH 15, 1996 [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : C S ectio11 I 6( I)( a )-Proviso-Section 20( I)( a )-Proviso-Interpretation D of Consumer Protection-State Commissi01t-President-Appoi11tment of-Procedure for-Appoilllment of Preside11t made for Harya11a State Com- missioit-ff eld valid. A former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was ap- pointed as President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner, an advocate and a member of the Punjab and Haryana Bar Association, challenged the appointment on the ground that E it was not in accordance with Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in consonance with the principles applicable for making such an appointment. Dismissing the petition, this Court F HELD : 1. The appointment made in the present case does not call for any interference. The appointment to the office of the President of the State Commission is to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and to the office of the President of the National Commission after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Such a provision requiring prior consultation with the Chief Justice is obviously G for the reason that he is the most suitable person to know about the suitability of the person to be appointed as the President of the Commis· sion. The provisions in Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for appointment of the President of the State Commission and in Section 20(l)(a) for appointment of the President of the National Com· H mission are in pari materia and have to be similarly construed. The 474 r A. HANDAv. HON. CJ.OFH.C.OFPB.ANDHARYANA[J.S. VERMA,J.] 475 construction of the proviso in Section 16(1) (a) and that in Section 20(1) (a) A must be the same because of the identity of the language. The expression 'after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court' and 'after consultation with the Chief Justice of India' must be construed in the same manner as the expression 'after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court' in Article 217 of the Constitu· B lion of India made in Supreme Coult Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors. v. Union of India*., Accordingly, the opinion of the Chief Jnstice of the High Court and the ·requirement of consultation with him according to the proviso in Section 16(1) (a) must have the same status as that or the Chief Justice of the High Court in the appointment of a High Court Judge under Article 217 of the Constitution or lndia; and the process of appoint· C ment to the office of the President of the State Commission must also be similar. [ 479-F; 478-A-E] *Supreme Coult Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors. v. Union of India, [1993] 4 sec 441, relied on. Sanvan Singh Lamba & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] 4 SCC 546, referred to. 2. In the facts of the present case, there was substantial compliance D of the proviso to Section 16(1)(a) of the Act and the appointment was made E after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case (C) No. l5 of 1994. Arising out of T.P. Under Article 139(A)(l) of the Constitution of F India. M.K. Dua, S.M. Sarin for the Petitioners. Kapil Sibal, Ms. ·Suruchi Aggarwal for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the G State of Haryaoa. J.S. Keharr Sr. (Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanvi Bagga) Advs. for the Ms. S. Bagga aod B.K. Prasad for the Respondent No 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H A B 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R. J.S. VERMA, J. The petitioner is an advocate and a member of the Bar Association of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the appoint- ment of Shri M.R. Agnihotri, a former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on completion of the term of Shri S.S. Sandhewalia, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, with effect from June 30, 1994. The challenge was made on the ground that the appointment of Shri M.R. Agnihotri was not in accordance with Section 16 of the Consumer Protec- tion Act, 1986 and in consonance with the principles applicable for making such a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.