1 / 3 CGHC010087222026 2026:CGHC:37970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2266 of 2026 Rajendra Pradhan S/o Jagbal Ram Pradhan Aged About 65 Years Currently Working As President, District - Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koriya Baikunthpur. R/o House No. 181, Akhada Basti, Manora, Kharsota, Jashpur District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2. Special Secretary Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 3. Registrar Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Near Pariwahan Office, Pandari Raipur District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koriya, Baikunthpur, vide order dated 10.02.2022, for a tenure of four years or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and has attained the age of superannuation on 10.03.2026. It is submitted that the respondents have neither initiated nor completed the process for fresh appointment to the said post, which JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 16:46:19 +0530 2 / 3 is likely to result in an administrative vacuum in the functioning of the Consumer Commission. Learned counsel, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1193, submits that continuity in the functioning of the quasi-judicial institution is required to be maintained until a fresh appointment is made. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the competent authorities seeking permission to continue in office till the vacancy is filled, but the same has not been considered. He, therefore, prays that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and ensure continuity in the functioning of the Commission. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim for continuation in office beyond the prescribed tenure is not maintainable in view of the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. It is submitted that under Rule 10, the President/Member can hold office for four years or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and any continuation beyond the age of 65 years would be contrary to the statutory provisions. It is further submitted that the principle of continuity relied upon by the petitioner cannot override the express statutory age limit. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 3 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has admittedly attained the age of 65 years on 10.03.2026. Under Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection (Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the President or Member of the District Commission can hold office for a period of four years or till attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. 5. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the principle of continuity and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra), cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the present case, as continuation in office beyond the maximum age prescribed under the statutory rules would be contrary to the express mandate of the Rules. The principle of continuity cannot be invoked so as to override the statutory prescription regarding the tenure and maximum age for holding the office. 6. In view of the aforesaid statutory position, no direction can be issued permitting the petitioner to continue as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission beyond the age of 65 years. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti