R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) The petitioner alleges herself to be a Senior Member in District Forum, Varanasi constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She was appointed on 24.11.1993 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner's grievance is that she has not been paid Rs. 100 per day honorarium as settled with her under the Rules and appointment letter by the respondents from October, 1995 till the date of filing of the writ petition and she seeks a further direction that respondent No. 1 be directed not to interfere in the working of the District Forum, Varanasi. It appears that she has been discharging her duties as required under the statute. It is also pertinent to refer, as stated in para 9 of the writ petition, that all the District Supply Officers have been directed vide Annexure-5 by the Government to see that payment is made to the members of the forum in different districts in first week of every month. It has also been ensured as appeared in Annexure-6 to the writ petition dated 29.6.1995 that no class III or class IV employees of the District Forum shall be engaged/disengaged for other offices so that working of forum is not hampered. The petitioner's grievance is that her experience in this regard is not good as the petitioner was stopped from availing services of class III and class IV employees and she was also not paid the honorarium. It appears that the petitioner approached the State Consumer Forum as well as addressed correspondence to the higher authorities but of no avail and later on she had to file this writ petition, as there was no other efficacious remedy. It is alleged by her that the action of the respondent No. 1 is bad. It is further alleged by her that by virtue of Rule 3 (7) of the U. P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, a senior-most member of District Forum holding office for the time being shall discharge the functions of the President until a person is appointed. For ready reference Rule 3 (7) of U. P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 is quoted below : "Rule 3 (7)--Where any vacancy occurs in the office of the president of the District Forum, the senior-most (in order of appointment) Member of District Forum, holding office for the time being, shall discharge the functions of the President until a person appointed to fill such vacancy assumes the office of the President of the District Forum,"
(2.) It is further alleged by the petitioner that her appointment was for five years and merely that President was not appointed on account of certain administrative exigencies, this does not disentitle the petitioner's functioning as a Member and to get payment. The petitioner described the action of the authorities as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.
(3.) The case of the respondent as revealed from the counter-affidavit is that since there was no President appointed since 27.3.1995 and no meeting for disposal of cases was convened for want of his appointment and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any honorarium. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to honorarium only for attending the meeting "convened" by the "President" for disposal of the complaints under the Act and not attending the meeting in absence of the President. The withdrawal of staff has also been Justified on the line of reasoning mentioned above. It is also stated that regarding the peon, the services can be utilised only when there is meeting and forum is working and not otherwise in the public interest. It is also stated in para 16 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner claims herself to be the President but not a single case has been decided from 27.5.1995 to 15.5.1996.;