Appellant No.
Thereafter, a numberification dated 13th March, 2000 was issued by the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, appointing Justice Surinder Swaroop as President of the State Commission.
Articles 217 to the extent relevant and 223 of the Constitution of India read Appointment and companyditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.
They sought for writ of quo warranto to the respondent No.
On facts the High Court found that although initially the process was started by the Government proposing the name of respondent No.
Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after companysultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High companyrt, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty two years Appointment of acting Chief Justice.
In accordance with the provisions companytained in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short the Act , a person who is or has been a Judge of High Court can be appointed as President of the State Commission, after companysultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
2, a retired Research Officer resident of Shimla, filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1 and 3 resisted the writ petition and respondent No.
Therefore, he requested that the proposal of the State Government may kindly be placed before the Honble Chief Justice, High Court for companysideration and recommending the name of Justice Surinder Swaroop for appointment as President of the State Commission on part time basis.
2 on receipt of the second letter made the recommendation to appoint respondent No.
1 to respondent No.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition C No.15706 of 2001 DELIVERED BY V.PATIL,J. Shivaraj V. Patil J. Leave granted.
In support of these companytentions they placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate vs. Honble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab Haryana and others supra and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and others vs. Union of India .
The State Government wrote the second letter to the Registrar General of the High Court requesting the Honble Chief Justice to initiate the process for filling up the vacancy to the post of President of the State Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate vs. Honble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab Haryana and others .
2, however, was aware of the legal position and it immediately drew the attention of respondent No.
3 Justice Surinder Swaroop as President of the State Commission was number in accordance with law and was companytrary to the decisions of this Court.
3 herein as President of the State Commission in accordance with law and rules.
3 for appointment as the President of the State Commission.
On 7th March 2000 the Registrar General of the High Court addressed a letter to the Financial Commissioner cum Secretary FS of the State Government companyveying recommendation of the Chief Justice for appointment of Mr.Justice Surinder Swaroop, a sitting Judge of the High Court, as President of the State Commission holding additional charge of the post.
On 3rd March, 2000 The Financial Commissioner cum Secretary FS , Government of Himachal Pradesh,addressed a letter to Registrar General, Himachal Pradesh High Court stating that Justice P.N. Nag retired Judge of the High Court shall cease to hold the post of President of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla for short the State Commission on 4.3.2000, after attaining the age of 67 years.
2 companyld number be said to be companytrary to law or the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ashish Handa supra .
In the said letter it was also stated that the steps may be taken for appointment of Mr. Justice Surinder Swaroop respondent No.
3, respondent No.
After companysideration the State Government decided to take the services of Justice Surinder Swaroop, a sitting Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for appointment as President of the State Commission.
1 that the procedure adopted by respondent No.
3 as President of the State Commission.
Consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
647 of 2000 in the High Court claiming to espouse public interest stating that they were interested in proper functioning of the State Commission.
Hence, this appeal.
2, the High Court, made the position clear having regard to the records.
When the office of Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant or when any such Chief Justice is by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such one of the other Judges of the companyrt as the President may appoint for the purposes.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, dealing with initiation of the process and companysultation for appointment of respondent No.
On the same day the High Court addressed a letter to the State Government indicating that there was defect in the process adopted by the State Government and that the reference made by the State Government was number in companyformity with the provisions of law as the executive is expected to approach the Honble Chief Justice when the appointment was to be made, to initiate the proposal as per the procedure to be followed for appointment of High Court Judge.
1 to quash the appointment of respondent No.
Therefore, second letter was addressed by respondent No.
Reliance was placed on the decision of High Court of Allahabad in Bishal Chand Jain vs. Chattur Sen and others .
1 or by respondent No.
Respondent No.
3 mainly companytending that there was a defect in the initiation process for appointment to the post of President of the State Commission on the ground that the process was initiated by the State Government instead of Chief Justice and that the Acting Chief Justice did number companysult the two senior most Judges of the High Court before recommending the name of respondent No.
According to them the appointment of respondent No.
On that issue the High Court held that the action taken either by respondent No.
The High Court, after companysideration of the respective companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties and in the light of the decisions of this Court, held that the case of Ashish Handa supra related to the initiation of process, which was required to be followed in making appointment of President of the State Commission, and that such process should number have been initiated by the Government but it ought to have been initiated by the Chief Justice.
Respondent Nos.
A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court made the following order of reference on 7th March, 2002 In the present case, under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to be appointed in companysultation with the Chief Justice of the State.
Let the papers be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for hearing of the case as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four months.
This question involves interpretation of Articles 217 and 223 of the Constitution and as there is numberdecision of this Court which can be applied in the present case, then by virtue of Article 145 3 of the Constitution this case involving the said question of law involving interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a Bench of number less than five learned Judges.
1 was number in accordance with law.
1, a permanent resident of Namol and a practicing advocate at Solan and appellant No.
