- (1.) The present Full Bench is constituted consequent upon orders dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 20715 of 2011. The matter initially came before the learned Single Judge, who opined that the issue involved in the case is of vital importance and needs to be considered by a Larger Bench and, therefore, vide order dated 06.01.2012, the learned Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench. The thought process of the learned Single Judge, while passing this order is of vital importance and we reproduce the said order in toto:- With reference to the powers of the State Commission under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, a Division Bench of this Court in Varinder Pal Kashyap v. State Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, Punjab and another, 2002 1 SCT 184: CWP No. 6985 of 2001 decided on 26.07.2001, firstly held as follows:- 8. The powers exercisable by the State Commission over the functioning of the District Forum and its members under Section 24-B cannot be equated or treated pari-materia to the control exercisable by the High Court over the District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, Unlike constitutional supervisory power as incorporated under Article 235 of the Constitution, the powers exercisable by the Commission under Section 24-B are definite in character and limited in extent. The administrative control exercisable by the State Commission over the District Forum would cover the day to day matters including the performance of its functions by the Members, but cannot hamper, encroach or interfere with quasi-judicial freedom and the powers squarely and plainly fall in the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority. This settled precept of administrative control hardly need any further elucidation. 9. In exercise of its administrative and supervisory control, the Commission would be well within its powers to ask for an explanation of the Member in regard to discharge of his official functions. The purpose of said explanation would obviously be to give a chance to the member of the District Forum to explain his conduct in reference to a particular commission or omission brought to the notice of the State Commission or its President by way of complaint or otherwise. But, the purpose of asking such explanation would be limited only to the extent of passing remarks, if any, against the officer concerned or for recommending to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law i.e. under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act and Rule 3(5) of the Rules. 2. In the concluding part of the decision, the Division Bench in paragraphs 19 and 20 held that:- 19. The provisions of Section 24-B of the Act arms the Commission with ample power of controlling the administration of justice by effective administrative and superintending control. Principle of fairness demands that such judicial or quasi-judicial authorities must act in a way where justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done in its true spirit. Allocation of work primarily falls within the do main of the Commission under its powers of superintendence and, thus, we cannot find any error on the part of the Commission in issuing order Annexure P-10 withdrawing the work from the said Member till further orders. Two specific instances have been brought on record by the Commission for passing such an order. 20. We are unable to appreciate as to why the Commission issued a charge-sheet and statement of imputations and appointed an inquiry officer. What purpose would it achieve? Answer to this question is very simple and straight. It would be an exercise in futility. In other words it will only have obdurate results as the Commission is not the appointing or disciplinary authority of the Members and as such does not enjoy disciplinary control over them. Its powers are not even that of a recommending authority by which the state Government would be bound. 3. On re-conciliation of the two sets of observations reproduced above, it appears that the Division Bench upheld the State Commission's purported powers under Section 24-B of the Act in withdrawing the judicial or administrative work of a Member of the District Forum as power to "allocate" the work necessarily implies the power to withdraw such work also. At the same time, the State Government has been held to be the disciplinary authority. 4. An order withdrawing judicial or administrative powers of the Presiding Officer of a judicial or quasi-judicial forum has very serious repercussions and for all intents and purposes it amounts to placing such officer under suspension. Will it be permissible in law or equity to exercise such like pre-emptory power where the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the recommendations of the State Commission? 5. The view taken by this Court in Varinder Pal Kashyap's case was later on considered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Prem Kumar Joshi v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 3 AWC 2871 and while disagreeing with the same, the Allahabad High Court in paragraph 26 observed as follows:- 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors., 1992 1 SCC 707 has issued certain directions for making the amendment in the Act and the Rules to confer the power of superintendence of State and National Commission. In view thereof certain amendments have been made. In V.P. Kashyap the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that preventing the President or Member of the Forum by the President of the State Commission is permissible in exercise of its powers of superintendence. With all due respects and humility at our command we do not agree with this proposition for the reason that the Commission cannot be permitted to usurp the powers conferred upon the disciplinary authority, i.e., the State Government. Power of administrative control cannot be stretched to the extent that it may make the State Government, the disciplinary authority, a redundant employer. Putting the seal on the Record Room so that the evidence against the petitioners may not be tampered with, may fall within the ambit of administrative control. Power of restraining them from working, which would have the effect of suspension, is not permissible. 6. The issue involved in this case is of vital importance as in the guise of 'administrative' or 'judicial' control on the functioning of the District Forum, the State Commission may in a given case, tinker with the day-to-day functioning of the District Forum which shall undoubtedly be contrary to the scheme of the Act. Very serious imputations made by the petitioner against the President of the State Commission in his representation dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-7) with supporting material on record also assume significance in this regard. 7. It would therefore be expedient if the principal and other allied issues are considered by a larger bench. 8. Let the records of this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to list this case before an appropriate bench preferably on 11.01.2012.
(2.) As pointed out above, the Division Bench referred the matter for consideration by the Full Bench vide order dated 17.05.2012, Since this order reflects the genesis for referring the matter to a Larger Bench and also the question that arises for consideration before the Full Bench, at the outset, we reproduce the said order itself in its entirety:- The question whether the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has power to recommend removal of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and while doing so, withdraw his judicial and administrative work, is the question that has been referred for adjudication. As a necessary consequence, the extent and nature of administrative control exercised by the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission over the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, would also require an answer. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Varinder Pal Kashyap v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab & Anr., CWP No. 6985 of 2001, decided on 26,07.2001, that though the President of the State Commission does not have the power to issue a charge-sheet or hold an enquiry against President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but as it has the power to "allocate" work, an inference would arise that it has the power to withdraw work. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Varinder Pal Kashyapa's case has after considering the provisions of Section 24-B(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') held that the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has no power to issue a chargesheet, or to hold an enquiry, but has held that Section 24-B of the Act can be read to confer ample power on the Commission to withdraw work of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The above conclusion is based upon an inference, that as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has power to allocate work to the President of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it necessarily has the power to withdraw such work. We have considered Section 24-B of the Act, all other relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, but are unable to discern any provision that may confer power upon the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as a whole, to allocate work to the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appointing and the disciplinary authority is the State, which alone has the power to issue a charge-sheet, hold an enquiry and order removal. The scheme of statute, particularly, the power of administrative control, does not lend itself to an inference that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has such a pervasive administrative control over the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as to empower it to withdraw judicial work. While it may be expedient to confer such a power for the purpose of maintaining the purity of administration of justice but in the absence of any such power, conferred upon the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we deem it appropriate to place the matter before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, for constituting a Larger Bench, to consider the provisions of the Act and the judgment in Varinder Pal Kashyap v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab & Anr., 2002 1 SCT 184: CWP No. 6985 of 2001, decided on 26.07.2001. if deemed appropriate.
(3.) It is clear from the above that the Division Bench nurtured some doubts about the correctness of the view taken by earlier Division Bench in Varinder Pal Kashyap in so far as it pertains to the powers of the President of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) over the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). In essence, we are called upon to decide the extent of the powers of the President of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the precise question is as to whether Section 24-B of the Act or any other provision gives power to the President to withdraw the judicial and administrative work of the President of the District Forum, when the President has no power to take any disciplinary action like issuing charge-sheet or holding an inquiry against the President or any other Member of the District Forum.;