- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6232 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.KUMARA.N, SON OF LATE NAGARAJ, AGED AROUND 56 YEARS, MEMBER OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT CONSUMER- DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU - 572 101. (PRESENTLY WORKING AT CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ON OOD). (RESIDENT OF SREE NILAYA, 10TH CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMAKURU - 572 103. 2. KUM.RENUKADEVI DESHPANDE, D/O.LATE SHAMARAO DESHPANDE, AGED AROUND 61 YEARS, LADY MEMBER OF BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAUVERY BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, BWSSB WING, KG.ROAD, BANGALURU - 560 009. (PRESENTLY WORKING AT BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 2ND ADDITIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ON OOD) (RESIDENT OF; NO 46 Y, 16TH MAIN ROAD, 58TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 3. SMT.SHARAVATHI.S.M, WIFE OF H.B.RAJU, AGED AROUND 51 YEARS, LADY MEMBER OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 1ST ADDITIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BMTC, TTMC BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, B BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BANGALURU-560 027. (RESIDENT OF NO 529/12, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 43RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 4. SMT.B.H.YASHODHA, WIFE OF B.MALLESHAPPA, AGED AROUND 52 YEARS, LADY MEMBER OF CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANK COLONY, TURUVANUR ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. (RESIDENT OF; NEAR BEDARAKANNAPPA TEMPLE, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 201. 5. SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, WIFE OF RAVISHKUMAR.M.D., AGED AROUND 51 YEARS, LADY MEMBER OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572101. (RESIDENT OF, BILWA, 1ST BLOCK, 6TH MAIN ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR 572103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-CUM- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BASAVA BHAVANA, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF.DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 07.10.2024, 15.01.2025, 20.01.2025, 07.10.2024, 16.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR EXTENSION OF THEIR SERVICE FOR SECOND TERM AS MEMBERS OF VARIOUS DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM IN TERMS OF 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 (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022, WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-D1 TO D5 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 07.10.2024, 15.01.2025, 20.01.2025, 07.10.2024, 16.01.2025 submitted by them for extension of their service for the second term as members of various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 2. The petitioners are members of various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in the State and whose appointments would come to an end by today and tomorrow. All the petitioners contend that the Consumer Protection Rules as amended by the notification dated 15.09.2022 provided for reappointment for another term of four years, subject to the maximum age limit of 65 years and subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioners submitted representations seeking continuation of their service for the next term of four years, which, purportedly is not considered till date - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking appropriate direction to the respondents to continue their services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above and contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.25612/2023, while considering a case from Bombay High Court in W.P.No.3680/2023, granted an interim order in similar circumstances and continued the service of the members for the second term. He therefore contends that the petitioners are also entitled to be treated alike. He further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.NO.101539/2025 had granted the relief to the petitioners therein, based on the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.25612/2023. Thus, he contends that the petitioners are also entitled to be treated alike. Hence, prays for an appropriate order. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents submits that the Hon'ble - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 Supreme Court had granted interim relief in a different context and that it has no bearing on the facts of this case. 5. He further contends that in respect of vacancies of members in various Consumer Dispute Forums, a public interest litigation was filed before this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.16634/2024 took cognizance of the fact that the State Government had constituted a Selection Committee. Therefore, it disposed off the writ petition holding that the grievance of the petitioners therein could be looked into by the Selection Committee. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore submits that the representation of the petitioners would also be considered by the Selection Committee. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 7. Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection Rules as amended by the notification dated 15.09.2022 reads as follows: "10. Term of office of President or Member:- (1) The President of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of sixty-seven years, and such reappointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. (2) Every member of the State Commission and the President and every member of the District Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of sixty-five years, and such re-appointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee". 8. Therefore, reading of Rule 10(2) makes it apparent that the members are eligible for reappointment - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 for second term of four years, subject to the age limit of 65 years and subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioners have submitted their representation before the respondents seeking re- appointment for the second term. The respondents are therefore bound to consider the case of the petitioner for re-appointment for the second term. It is no doubt true that such re-appointment is not automatic but should be based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Now that, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Selection committee is constituted and since the term of the petitioners is due to end by today and tomorrow, it is appropriate to direct to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners till the Selection Committee makes appropriate recommendations regarding the continuance of the petitioners as members of various District Forums in the State of Karnataka. The writ petition is therefore disposed off on the above terms. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9024 WP No. 6232 of 2025 9. The respondent No.2 is directed to place all the representations filed by the petitioners before the Selection Committee for consideration and for appropriate orders. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31