# Ganesh Prasad v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-28
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 68402 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganesh-prasad-v-union-of-india-ors-43226
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Consumer Protection Act 1986-Section
10(2)-Superannuation age of member of
District forum 60 years-while upper age of
consumer forum 67 years likewise national
forum
70
years-being
discriminatoryultravires held-sole wisdom of legislaturestate forum presided by Judge High Courtand national forum by Supreme Court
Judge-member of district forum-can not
claim treatment of other state or national
forum-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-8
These are all matters which are in the
realm of policy for the legislative body in
considering as to whether there should
be a uniform age of retirement for all
members of the District Fora at par with
what
has
been
prescribed
for
the
National
Commission
or
otherwise,
whether there should be a distinction.
We find no ground to hold that the
provision is ultra vires or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.

## Text

884
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after the auction was over is beyond their
jurisdiction and contrary to the aim and
object of the Government Order dated
17.10.1995 and the Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Ram Kumar
(supra)
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement.
9. In view of the foregoing
discussions although the petitioner has not
sought quashing of the subsequent auction
of the revenue authorities, but under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
order dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Nautanwa,
Maharajganj,
cancelling
the
earlier
auction held for settlement of fishery
lease (in which the petitioner has offered
Rs.
60,900/-)
and
the
subsequent
proceeding, if any being illegal and
arbitrary, deserves to be quashed.
10. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order
dated
28.7.2014
and
the
consequential proceeding, if any, is
hereby quashed. The Sub Divisional
Officer,
Nautanwa,
Maharajganj
is
directed to proceed in accordance with
law and pass an appropriate order
regarding approval /disapproval of the
proceeding dated 11.7.2014 within a
period of two weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
of this Court. In case, it is approved, it is
well and good and in case, it is
disapproved reason for the same may be
recorded in the form of order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 68402 of 2014
Ganesh Prasad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri U.K. Singh, Advocate, Sri Chandra
Bhan Gupta, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., ASGI/2014/11256
Consumer Protection Act 1986-Section
10(2)-Superannuation age of member of
District forum 60 years-while upper age of
consumer forum 67 years likewise national
forum
70
years-being
discriminatoryultravires held-sole wisdom of legislaturestate forum presided by Judge High Courtand national forum by Supreme Court
Judge-member of district forum-can not
claim treatment of other state or national
forum-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-8
These are all matters which are in the
realm of policy for the legislative body in
considering as to whether there should
be a uniform age of retirement for all
members of the District Fora at par with
what
has
been
prescribed
for
the
National
Commission
or
otherwise,
whether there should be a distinction.
We find no ground to hold that the
provision is ultra vires or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The petitioner was appointed as a
member of the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum1 of Kanpur under the
Consumer Protection Act, 19862 on 4
March 2011 for a period of five years or
until
the
age
of
sixty-five
years,
whichever is earlier. The petitioner
2 All] Ganesh Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
885
attained the age of sixty years on 31
December 2014, following which his term
came to an end. These proceedings were
initiated on 17 December 2014 for
seeking a declaration that Section 10 (2)
of the Act is ultra vires and for a
mandamus determining the maximum age
for a member of the District Forum to
hold office until the age of seventy. The
petitioner incidentally has also challenged
the provisions for the tenure and the age
of
retirement
of
members
of
the
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Commission3 under Section 16 (3) and
has similarly sought a mandamus for
continuance until the age of seventy.
2. Section 10 (1) of the Act provides
for the composition of the District Forum
and, insofar as is material, provides as
follows:
"10. Composition of the District
Forum.- (1) Each District Forum shall
consist of--
(a) a person who is, or has been, or is
qualified to be a District Judge, who shall
be its President;
(b) two other members, one of whom
shall be a woman, who shall have the
following qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years
of age,
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from
a recognised university,
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity
and
standing,
and
have
adequate
knowledge and experience of at least ten
years in dealing with problems relating to
economics, law, commerce, accountancy,
industry, public affairs or administration:"
3. Section 10(2) provides that every
member of the District Forum shall hold
office for a term of five years or until the
age of sixty-five years, whichever is
earlier. However, a member would be
eligible for re-appointment for another
term of five years or until the age of sixtyfive years, whichever is earlier. The
provisions
in
regard
to
the
State
Commission are contained in Section 16.
Section 16 (1), insofar as is material,
provides as follows:
"16. Composition of the State
Commission.- (1) Each State Commission
shall consist of -
(a) a person who is or has been a
Judge of a High Court, appointed by the
State Government, who shall be its
President;
Provided that no appointment under
this clause shall be made except after
consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court;
(b) not less than two, and not more
than such number of members, as may be
prescribed, and one of whom shall be a
woman, who shall have the following
qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years
of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from
a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity
and
standing,
and
have
adequate
knowledge and experience of at least ten
years in dealing with problems relating to
economics, law, commerce, accountancy,
industry, public affairs or administration:
Provided that not more than fifty
percent of the members shall be from
amongst
persons
having
a
judicial
background."
4. Under Section 16(3), every
member of the State Commission holds
office for a term of five years or until the
age of sixty seven years, whichever is
886
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier but a member is eligible for reappointment for another term of five years
or until the age of sixty seven years,
whichever is earlier. The composition of
the
National
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal Commission4 is governed by
Section 20 which, inter alia, provides as
follows:
"20. Composition of the National
Commission.-
(1)
The
National
Commission shall consist of -
(a) a person who is or has been a
Judge of the Supreme Court, to be
appointed by the Central Government,
who shall be its President;
Provided that no appointment under
this clause shall be made except after
consultation with the Chief Justice of
India.
(b) not less than four, and not more
than such number of members, as may be
prescribed, and one of whom shall be a
woman, who shall have the following
qualifications, namely: -
(i) be not less than thirty-five years
of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from
a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity
and
standing
and
have
adequate
knowledge and experience of at least ten
years in dealing with problems relating to
economics, law, commerce, accountancy,
industry, public affairs or administration:
Provided that not more than fifty
percent of the members shall be from
amongst the persons having a judicial
background."
5. Section 20(3) provides that every
member of the National Commission shall
hold office for a term of five years or until
the age of seventy years, whichever is
earlier, but a member is eligible for reappointment for another term of five years
or until the age of seventy, whichever is
earlier.
6. The Presiding Officer of the
District Forum is a person who is or has
been or is qualified to be a District Judge.
The Presiding Officer of the State
Commission is a person who is or has
been a Judge of the High Court. The
Presiding
Officer
of
the
National
Commission is a person who is or has
been a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Having due regard to the fact that District
Judges are to be Presiding Officers of the
District Fora, the maximum age for the
Presiding Officer has been fixed as sixtyfive. Correspondingly, the maximum age
in respect of the State Commission is
sixty-seven since the Presiding Officer of
the State Commission is a Judge of the
High Court who would retire from the
High Court at sixty-two. Corresponding
provisions have been made in respect of
the members of the National Commission
in Section 20.
7. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the petitioner is that
the qualifications for membership of the
District Forum, the State Commission and
the National Commission are similar and,
hence, there is no justification to make a
distinction in the age of retirement for the
members of those bodies. The petitioner
seeks a mandamus of this Court that all
members of the District Fora should retire
at the age of seventy.
8. A mandamus cannot be issued by
the High Court directing Parliament or a
legislating body to frame law in a
particular way. Consequently, it would
not be open to the Court to mandate that a
member of the District Fora under the Act
2 All] Ganesh Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
887
or, for that matter, of any other judicial
body, should retire on the attainment of a
particular age of superannuation. This is
clearly a matter of legislative policy. The
issue before the Court is really narrower
as to whether there is any discrimination,
which is violative of Article 14, in the
provisions of Section 10 when compared
to those of Section 20. The Act
contemplates that the District Fora be
presided over by a District Judge or by a
person who is qualified to be a District
Judge. The corresponding provisions of
Section 16 for the State Commission
require the President to be a person who is
or has been a Judge of the High Court and
of Section 20, a person who is or has been a
Judge of the Supreme Court. In the case of
the appointment of the President of the State
Commission, consultation is required with
the Chief Justice of the High Court, whereas
in the case of the President of the National
Commission, consultation is required with
the Chief Justice of India. In making
provisions for the age of superannuation of
the members of the District Forum,
Parliament was entitled to make such
provisions as would dovetail with the
provision made in regard to the Presiding
Officer of the District Forum. Sixty-five
years has been fixed uniformly for all the
members of the District Fora or a term of
five years, whichever is earlier, having due
regard to the fact that a District Judge would
demit office from the State judicial service
at the age of sixty. Parliament, in its
legislative wisdom, is entitled to make a
distinction
between
the
age
of
superannuation and the term of office for
the members of Tribunals within a
hierarchy of Tribunals. Again, whether such
a distinction should be made or whether
there should be uniformity of all conditions
of service, is a matter of legislative policy
and prescription. The High Court cannot
hold that fixing the term of the members of
the District Fora as five years or until a
member attains the age of sixty-five,
whichever is earlier, is discriminatory or is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Though, in a broad sense, the members of
the District Forum, State Commission and
the National Commission discharge judicial
functions, the nature of their responsibilities
varies. The jurisdiction of the District
Forum under Section 11, the jurisdiction of
the State Commission under Section 17 and
the jurisdiction of the National Commission
under Section 21 are different. The
pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the
District Fora in Section 11 is where the
value of the goods or services and the
compensation, if any, claimed does not
exceed
rupees
twenty
lakhs.
The
corresponding provision for the State
Commission in Section 17 is between
rupees twenty lakhs and rupees one crore,
whereas that of the National Commission in
Section 21 is where the claim exceeds
rupees one crore. Moreover, the State
Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction
over the District Forum, whereas the
National Commission exercises appellate
jurisdiction over the State Commission.
These are all matters which are in the realm
of policy for the legislative body in
considering as to whether there should be a
uniform age of retirement for all members
of the District Fora at par with what has
been
prescribed
for
the
National
Commission or otherwise, whether there
should be a distinction. We find no ground
to hold that the provision is ultra vires or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. For these reasons, we find no
merit in the writ
petition which is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
888
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 74060 of 2010
Rishi Deo Pandey & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nitya Prakash Tiwari, Sri D.K. Singh,
Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar, Sri Vivek
Kumar Birla, Sri V.K. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Uma Nath Pandey
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act 1982-appointment on post of L.T.
Grade teacher-after publication of vacancy
in two newspapers-duly approved by DIOSsubsequently
confirmed
by
Regional
Committee-appointment made in 1991getting
salary
thereafter-can
not
be
disturbed-as Division Bench classification
about applicability of requirement of Radha
Raizada case prospectively.
Held: Para-23
After careful consideration of the matter,
I find that the submission of the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
merits
acceptance. Accordingly, I am of the
view that the petitioners, who were
working continuously since 1991 with
the approval of the DIOS and the
Regional
Level
Committee,
no
interference
is
called
for
in
their
continuance. With regard to the case of
Gajraj Singh, the DIOS has rightly held
that he has raised his claim after 15
years.
Case Law discussed:
[(1983) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C 1722];(1994)3 U.P.L.B.E.C
1551.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. Three petitioners, who are
working as Assistant Teachers, have
joined this writ petition seeking issuance
of writ of certiorari quashing the orders
dated
14.6.2010
and
3.12.2010
respectively,
whereby
the
District
Inspector of Schools1 had stopped the
salary of the petitioners and later on found
that their appointment was illegal.
2. Essential facts are that the
National Inter College, Harraiya, District
Basti2
is
a
recognized
and
aided
institution.
The
said
institution
is
imparting education upto the level of
Intermediate classes. It receives financial
aid from the State funds. The institution is
governed by the provisions the U.P. Act
No. II of 19213 as well as U.P. Act No. 5
of 19824
3. It is averred in the writ petition
that six posts of the LT Grade Assistant
Teacher fell vacant. The Committee of
Management sent requisition to the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board5 through DIOS on 5.6.1989,
2.5.1990 and 27.4.1991 to fill up the said
vacancies. When no select list was sent by
the Board, the Committee of Management
initiated the recruitment process for the
appointment on adhoc basis in terms of
the provisions of the Commission Act,
1982.
4. The vacancies were advertised on
6.6.1991
in
a
newspaper
'Dainik
Gramdoot'
in
addition
to
the
advertisement on the notice board. A copy
of the newspaper is on record as
Annexure-3. The petitioners claim that
they were found suitable on the basis of