Deeksha Sood
Previous week the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court directed the Central and Maharashtra governments to respond to a petition challenging the validity of the Consumer Protection Rule 2020 which governs the appointment of the President and members to state and District Consumer disputes redressal Commissions.
On behalf of the petitioner, Dr Mahindra Limaye a lawyer practising in Nagpur filed the petition challenging the consumer protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.
The petition stated that till the date of executing the recommendation has not been determined by the committee despite directions issued by the Apex Court this regards through judgment in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association.
Petition filed through Tushar Mandelker stated that only lawyers with twenty years of practice should be considered for appointment as a member in state3 commission while for District Commission only lawyers with ten years of experience or more should be considered.
“The tribunals no doubt will have retired District Judges, High Court Judges as the Presiding Officers but will have members of special standard, the Rules 2020 has widened the eligibility of the appointment of the member, who would otherwise have no judicial or legal experience” the petition said.”