STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 04-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
-
NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : 
c 
Section /6(1)(a), proviso [As amended by Amendment Act 50of1993]-
President of the State Consumer Commission-Appointment of-Statutory 
procedure-Requirement of consultation with Chief Justice of the High Court-
~ 
Held: Manner of initiation of proposal for consultation with the Chief Justice 
under S.16(l)(a) must take place as laid down in Ashish Handa's case. 
D 
Section 16(l)(a), proviso [As amended by Amendment Act 50of1993], 
16(JA)[as inserted by Amendment Act 62 of 2002] & 16(l)(b)-President of 
the State Consumer Commission-Appointment of-Held: Procedure 
contemplated under S.16(1 A) cannot apply in respect thereof-If Selection 
Committee comprising of two Secretaries of the State Government under 
S.16(1 A) were to select President, it would be destructive of judicial 
E independence-Procedure under S.16(1 A) can only apply in respect of 
appointment of members falling under S.16(l)(b). 
Questions pertaining to the content of statutory consultation 
postulated under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
with the Chief Justice of State High Court for appointment of the President 
F of the State Consumer Commission, and the import of amendment in the 
Act by introduction of Section 16(1A), arose for consideration in the 
present appeals. 
In an earlier decision in Ashish Randa, this Court had held that it is 
the Chief Justice of the High Court, who should initiate the process in the 
G matter of appointment of a Judge, sitting or retired, as ·President of the 
State Commission. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
-" 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. In the case of Ashok Tanwar, the Constitution Bench of 
H 
1158 
STATE v .. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP 
1159 
this Court had occasion to consider the issue of "consultation with the A 
> 
Chief Justice of High Court" under Section 16 of the Act. The Constitution 
Bench specifically overruled the decision in Ashish Handa only on this issue 
holding that the process and context of"consultation with the Chief Justice 
Of the State High Court" within the meaning of Section 16(l)(a) is not to 
be equated with the consultation contemplated under Article 217 of the .B 
Constitution for appointment of a High Court Judge. The Constitution 
Bench pointed out that, though the process may be similar in several other. 
aspects, the two consultations cannot be held to be qualitatively identical 
as one was for appointment to a statutory post, whi!e the other was a 
Constitutional appointment. It was also held that the requirement of 
consultation with two senior-most Judges of the High Court could not be c 
read into the consultation required under Section 16 (IA) for appointment 
of the Chairman of the State Commission, and that consultation with the 
Chief Justice of the High Court was sufficient. Although overruling Ashish 
Handa on this aspect of the matter, the Constitution Bench referred with 
approval to the said judgment. Thus, the Constitution Bench differed from D 
Ashish Handa only on the issue of whether consultation with the Chief 
Justice meant consultation with the collegium of the High Court. In other 
respects, Ashish Handa was approved. 
11166-G; 1167-A, C, D, E; 1168-A-BJ 
1.2. The manner of initiation of proposal has thus remained the same E 
throughout and it is not open for this Court to take a different view of 
the matter. The law is quite settled and is binding. Thus, the manner of 
initiation of proposal for a consultation with the Chief Justice under 
Section 16(l)(a) of the Act must take place in the manner as laid down by 
the judgment of this Court in Ashish Handa's case. 11168-E, Fl 
F 
Ashok Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh and Ors., 120051 
2 sec 104, followed. 
Ashish Handa v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana and Ors., 119961 3 SCC 145 and Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association v. Union of India, 1199314 SCC 441, referred to. 
G 
2.1. A literal reading of sub-section (IA) of Section 16 may prima 
facie suggest that appointments under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 
(1) are also governed by the procedure contemplated therein, under sub-
section (IA), but the two sub-sections have to be harmoniously construed. 
H 
The procedure contemplated under sub-section (IA) can apply only in 
1160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.