APHC010344202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21115/2024 Between: 1. ACHUTA PARTHASARATHY, S/O LATE SRI A.P JAYARAM AGED 65YEARS, DOOR NO. 3-1-57/1, 4TH CROSS EAST, BESIDE SRINILAYA RESIDENCY, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI - 517 507. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, ROOM NO 49, KRISHI BHAWAN RAFI MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI -110001 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES. A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not following the Interim Directions dated 27.06.2024 of the Honble Supreme Court inSLP No. 25612 of 2023in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limayedespite representations by the petitioneras arbitrary and illegal as 2 they defeat Provisions object and scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent toallow the petitioner to continue to remain in the Office as the President District Consumer Commission II, Tirupati till the process of Constitution of Selection Committee is completed, pending issuance of Notification for the Selection and appointment of the President, District Consumer Commission II, Tirupati and in the interest of Justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be to grant an interim direction to the 2nd Respondent to allow the petitioner to temporarily to continue to remain in office as President of the District Consumer Commission II, Tirupati by considering the Representations submitted by the petitioner pending appointmentof the President in due course by considering the interim directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.06.2024 in Ganeshkumar > Rajeshwarrao Selukar Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye SLP No. 25612 of 2023 in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3. GP FOR SERVICES I 4. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.21115 of 2024 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not following the interim directions dated 27.06.2024 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye passed in SLP.No.25612 of 2023 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner had worked as District Judge and retired while working as Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.06.2019. Subsequently, the Petitioner was selected as President, District Consumer Commission II, Tirupati from 07.02.2022 to 23.06.2024. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed interim order in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye in SLP.No.25612 of 2023 on 21.05.2024 and the same is being extended on 27.05.2024 and 27.06.2024 and as per the said order, he is entitled for continuance of his service as President, District Consumer Commission. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri M.Vijay Kumar appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the interim orders of the Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court make it categorical that the Petitioner is entitled for continuance of his service as President, District Consumer Commission II, pending further orders. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the State is the employer of the Petitioner and the State of Andhra Pradesh is not a party to the case and it arises out of the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in W.P.No.3680 of 2023. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the orders dated 21.05.2024 and 27.6.2024 do not provide for any relief to the Petitioner. 6. Heard Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Deputy Solicitor General of India, Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, Government Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents. 7. Initially, Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) of the 2020 Rules of 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 were challenged before Bombay High Court. 5 8. Vide judgment and order dated 14.09.2021, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, declared the aforesaid Rules as unconstitutional and had struck down the Rules. The Judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 231 ( Herein after referred to as Limaye – I) on 03.03.2023 and the State as well as Central Government were directed to amend the Rules, 2020, more particularly, Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020, providing that the Selection Committee shall follow the procedure for appointment as per Model Rules, 2017 and to make the appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and the District Commission on the basis of the performance in written test consisting of two papers of 100 marks each and 50 marks for viva voce and the written test consisting of two papers. 9. After pronouncement of the judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court, a notice had been issued on 23.05.2023 by the State of Maharashtra, inviting applications for the posts of Members of the State Commission and Presidents and Members of the District Commission. Then, writ petitions were filed before Bombay High Court questioning Rule 6(1) and 10(2) of the Rules, 2020. Vide 6 judgment dated 20.10.2023, the Bombay High Court, partly allowed the writ petitions and struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules, finding them to be legally unsustainable, and also quashed the notifications. The said Judgement was questioned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, 112 persons had been appointed to the posts of Members of the State Commission, Presidents and Members of the District Commissions, vide order dated 05.10.2023, by the State of Maharashtra. Since these appointees would stand to be removed on account of the Judgment of Bombay High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed interim orders 10.11.2023, staying the operation of the Judgment of Bombay High Court temporarily till 24.11.2023 and thereafter extended from time to time and also extended to appointees, who did not challenge the Judgement of Bombay High Court. 11. On 21.05.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced judgement in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye (Herein after referred to as Limaye-II). The directions in Limaye-I were clarified and the written examination followed by viva voce was held to be not required for selection to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the 7 State Commission and President of the District Commission. Further, the striking down of Rule 6(1) and 10(2) by the Bombay High Court was upheld. 12. The Union of India was directed to frame rules within four (4) months and thereafter, the States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of four (4) months from the date of the notification of the said rules. Till the rules are notified, the Presidents and Members of the State and District Commissions who have been appointed and serving prior to Limaye-I were permitted to continue. The Judgement was held to be applicable prospectively. 13. The initial interim orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.11.2023 and the subsequent interim orders referred to by the Petitioner are with regard to 112 persons, who had been appointed to the posts of Members of the State Commission and Presidents and Members of the District Commissions, vide order dated 05.10.2023, by the State of Maharashtra as mentioned above. Those interim orders have no bearing on the Petitioner who demitted the office on 23.06.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. 14. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 30.10.2025 KLP