APHC010514322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29258/2025 Between: B Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DILIP JAYARAM S (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.29258 of 2025 O R DE R: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Respondent Authorities to continue the Petitioner as Member (Judicial) of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, in view of the judgment dated 21.05.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye1. 2. The Petitioner was a Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission at Vijayawada and had retired from service on attaining the maximum age prescribed under the Rules on 09.02.2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with Sections 61 and 101(2) 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 (for 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 603 3 short, ‘Rules, 2020’) for appointment of Members to the Consumer Forum, quashed the said Rules, and directed the Union of India to amend the Rules, and stated that till such time, the Members existing as on date can be continued in service. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 102 held that the said judgment shall apply prospectively. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “ We make it clear that for all those appointments which have been allowed to continue vide this Judgment, the tenure shall be a period of four years. Such persons shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of this Judgment qua a five year tenure, subject to the directions issued hereinabove. We also make it clear that this Judgment shall apply prospectively, except to the extent indicated in the directions hereinabove. 3. Considering the fact that the Petitioner had retired as a Member of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, on 09.02.2025, and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly indicates that the said Judgment shall apply prospectively, the Petitioner cannot claim any relief under the above judgment. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to 4 costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.11.2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29258/2025 Dt. 05.11.2025 eha