HC stays appointments of three heads of consumer fora in Punjab
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THESE POSTS WERE INITIALLY CHALLENGED IN FEBRUARY
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday restrained the Punjab government from making appointments of three persons as presidents, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora in the state.
The recommendations to these posts were initially challenged in February by one Bhupinder Kumar Sharma, who had alleged that the trio has been recommended for appointment as presidents, District Consumer Forums in Punjab despite the fact that they are not qualified for the said post under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Those whose appointments have been stayed are Neelam Gupta (Gurdaspur), Amandeep Singh Shergill (Ferozepur) and Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (Amritsar). Another recommendation which too is under challenge is of RL Mittal, wherein the state said that it has been put on hold. A total of eight appointments were made.
The order was passed by high court bench of chief justice RS Jha and justice Arun Palli after the bench was apprised by Sharma’s counsel, Shekhar Verma that the these three persons have already been issued orders of appointment on July 13 even though the state had made a ‘contrary’ statement before the court on the previous date of hearing.
The government counsel told had told the court that the orders had been issued in respect of the trio and some others. However, no order of appointment has been issued for the appointment of RL Mittal, in view of some complaints against him.
“In view of the aforesaid (submissions by counsels), as the matter requires to be examined by this court and in view of the proceedings that have transpired, we think it appropriate to direct that the operation of the orders of appointment issued in favour of respondents No.5,6 and 7 (the trio whose appointment has been stayed) shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing,” the bench ordered.
It was on June 26 than an application was filed by the petitioner claiming that the government could make these appointments. Hence, the matter be taken up. However, the government counsel had told court that the “likelihood of making appointments till July 7, 2020, is minimal” in view of this, the court dismissed application. However, matter, which was to be taken up on July 8, was deferred for further hearing till August in view of Covid-19 outbreak. The appointment orders, as per Verma, were made on July 13. It was also on March 2 that a counsel of state had told court that “the state is not taking any steps in the next two weeks to make any appointment as the matter is under process.” Thereafter, the case was to be taken up on March 18.