Legal Question in Constitutional Law in India

President of consumer forums
Anticipating a vacancy to occur in the post of a President of a state forum a year ahead ,the state government began hectic consultation with the chief justice and full bench of judges to pick up a suitable candidate. The chosen president hardly performed his duties for three months after which a writ of quo warrento was issued on him by the high court. The deposed judge approached the supreme court and his removal was stayed but was asked to go on leave until the case of constitutional validity of the removal is decided. It is three months now and no order has been passed by apex court and the case remains partly heard. Can a judge who had survived hardly for three months have accumulated 3 months of leave. The state forum is not hearing any cases on the pretext of absence of the president. While section 22D specifies in case of absence of the president for any reasons the senior most member can convene the court but this is not happening. Nor the state government shows any interest that business should go on in the forum. Who is responsible for this state of affairs?. . .

Asked on 3/07/09, 12:12 pm

4 Answers from Attorneys

Homi Maratha N.N. Maratha & Co.-Advocates

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: President of consumer forums

Please mention all legal facts.

Answered on 3/13/09, 6:35 am

Mark as helpful

sheelavathi karnam

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

Re: President of consumer forums

HELO, YOUR FIRST QUESTION

Can a judge who had survived hardly for three months have accumulated 3 months of leave ?

leave means it contains various kinds. leave without salary is also one kind of leave. extra ordinary leave is also a kind of leave without salary. this instant case, it can be treated as complsory leave. in such cases apex court has decided that complsory leave is nothing but suspension. but it is not suspension.

your 2nd question.........

Who is responsible for this state of affairs?. . .

as per your brief " section 22D specifies in case of absence of the president for any reasons the senior most member can convene the court ..." rule makers are made a proper rule. it must be executed by the authority concerned. if not it is failure on the part of the appropriate authority ultimately state is liable for this kind of lapse. it can be questioned by any citizen by means of writ before hon'ble high court or the hon'ble apex court. even it can be treated as failure on the part of admn of the state.also it can be say as costitutional machinery breakdown art 356 may attracts ( extreme stage only ). it is nothing but break down of rule of law. here there is no lapses in law or the court verdicts. lapses lies on the state authority concerned.

no doubt its special case.

Answered on 3/07/09, 2:25 pm

Mark as helpful