IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1555 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).18153/2008 DATED 18/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- YASIR.A.Y, ADVOCATE, ATHIYA MANZIL, KURAKKANI, VARKALA.P.O, CHIRAYINKEEL. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 3. THE SECRETARY (CONVENOR OF SELECTION COMMITTEE), FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K. GOPALAN, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR. 5. JACOB STEPHAN, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. K. GEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WAYANAD. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1555 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C. J. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18153 of 2008 dated 18th June, 2008 is called in question by the petitioner in the writ petition by presenting this writ appeal 2. In this writ appeal, the only question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is the possible construction that could be placed on Section 10(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'. The said provision reads as under: “10. Composition of the District Forum.- (1) Each District Forum shall consist of; (a) a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President. (b) two other members, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualification, namely, (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age, (ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university, W.A.No.1555 of 2008 2 (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration; Provided that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member if he - (a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves mortal turpitude; or (b) is an undischarged insolvent; or (c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court; or (d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or (e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such a financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his function as a member; or (f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government”. 3. The aforesaid provision, in our opinion, is unambiguous. The language employed by the legislature is crystal clear. The 'tools' which are required for the construction/interpretation of the aforesaid provision, has a minimal use, is our thinking in this case. The section W.A.No.1555 of 2008 3 provides the qualifications required for the purpose of appointment of a President in the Consumer Forum under the Act. It only says the persons to be appointed as the President of the Consumer Forum, should be a person holding the post of District Judge or a person who had held the post as a District Judge or a person who is qualified to be appointed as a District Judge. Apart from this construction no other construction is possible on sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. 4. Correctly interpreting the aforesaid provision, as we have noticed earlier, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. 5. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns