IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1613 of 2009 Between: N.Rupakumar S/o.Dasaratharamaiah Setty Room No.2, Yerramma Buildings, Barracks, Nellore ..... PETITIONER 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (CS.III) Department secretariat buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Andhra Pradesh STate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, Eruvaka Buildings, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep.by its Registrar 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep.by its Secretary Legal Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad 4 B.Karuna Kumari W/o.Not known Nellore .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.131 Consumer Affairs , Food & Civil Supplies (CS.III) Department dated 15.9.2008 in so far as the re-appointment of Smt.Karuna Kumari , Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Nellore./4th Rspondent herein is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.1613 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare G.O.Rt.No.131, Consumer Affairs, Foo Civil Supplies (CS.III) Department dated 15.09.2008 in so far as the re appointment of Smt. Karuna Kumari, as La Member, District Consumer Forum, Nellore - the fourth respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently aside the same. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that the Registrar (FAC), A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redres Commission addressed a letter dated 14.2.2008 to the first respondent forwarding recommendations of the Select Committee for appointment of Lady Members in District Forums, Vizianagaram and West Godavari District at Eluru a Male Members in District Forums, Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy along with copies of the applications of the candidat who have been recommended by the Selection Committee, for issuing orders of appointments. Thereafter, the f respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.131 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS III) Department dated 15.09.2008. T G.O. was issued pursuant to the D.O. letter dated 14.2.2008. It is stated that in the D.O. letter, dated 14.2.2008 address by the second respondent to the first respondent, there is no whisper with regard to recommending the name of the fou respondent for reappointment as Lady Member of District Consumer Forum, Nellore. 3. It is also stated that the fourth respondent made application stating that her term of office would expired on 29.08.2008 and requested for reappointment. The District & Sessions Judge addressed a letter da 22.9.2008 to Smt. Poonam Malakondaiah enclosing a copy of Minutes of the meeting of the alleged Selection Commit dated 20.9.2008 and requested to take necessary steps for approval of the recommendations of the Selection Commit and to issue orders reappointing Sri R.L.Narasimha Rao, as Member, District Forum, Karimnagar and Smt.B.Karu Kumari, as Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Nellore on full time basis. It is stated that as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short 'the Act) the Selection Committee must consist of 3 members, but in this case selection committee was constituted with two members. It is further stated that as the vacancies have not been publish in the newspapers, several eligible candidates could not send their applications. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, G.O. is liable to be set-aside. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent stating inter alia that she was reappointed accordance with Section 10 (1-A) of the Act . It is stated that she made an application dated 29.4.2008 to the Presiden A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for reappointment for another term of five years as Lady Member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nellore, as her term of office would expire on 29.08.2008. The Chairman of District Consumer Forum has forwarded her application to the selection committee and pursuant to the recommendat of the selection committee, she was reappointed vide G.O.Rt.No.131 dated 15.09.2008. It is stated that in the said G due to typographical mistake, the date of the D.O. letter was shown as ‘14.02.2008’ instead of 22.09.2008. It is also sta that in a case of reappointment, there is no necessary for issuance of notification. It is further stated that the select committee was constituted consisting of President and two other members. The petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition as he is neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed as Lady Member of the Consumer Forum, Nellore, a that the present writ petition is filed by way of public interest litigation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that to have a fair method of appointment, authorities have to issue a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates so as to consider their case appointment and that the authorities have not followed the procedure as contemplated under provisions of the Act. The learned coun contends that even for reappointment of a sitting member, the fourth respondent has to fulfill all the qualifications and ot conditions. In support of her contention, she relied on the decision reported in Government of NCT of Delhi and Anot Vs. Dr.Prem Lata [1] wherein it was held as under: “Even for re-appointment of a sitting Member of a District Consumer Forum for another term, he/she has to fulfill all the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the D.O.letter dated 14.2.2008, Registrar forwarded the recommendations of the Selection Committee for appointments of Lady Members in Dis Forums, Vizianagaram and West Godavari District at Eluru and Male Members in District Forums, Nalgonda and Ra Reddy along with copies of the applications of the candidates, who have been recommended by the Selec Committee, but contrary to the said letter, the G.O. was issued reappointing R.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, as Mem District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar and the fourth respondent , as Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Nello and as such, the G.O. is not sustainable. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that a selection committee was constitu consisting of three members as contemplated under Section 10(1-A) of the Act and they have recommended the nam the fourth respondent for reappointment as Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Nellore, to the first respondent. T first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.131 dated 15.09.2008 pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Commi vide D.O. letter dated 22.09.2008, but however, in the said G.O., due to typographical mistake, the date of D.O. letter w mentioned as 14.02.2008 instead of 22.09.2008. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. It is seen that as per Section 10 A) of the Act, a selection committee was constituted consisting of three members and it met on 20.9.2008 and a satisfying the eligible criteria, the name of the fourth respondent was recommended vide D.O.letter dated 22.09.2008 reappointment as Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Nellore on whole time basis for another term of five years o to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. Pursuant to the recommendations vide D.O. letter 22.09.2008, the Governm have issued G.O.Rt. No.131 dated 15.09.2008 reappointing the fourth respondent as Lady Member of District Consu Forum, Nellore. 9. Further, the petitioner, being a male person, has not explained on what way he was affected with reappointment of the fourth respondent as Lady Member of District Consumer Forum, Nellore, since the vacancy earmarked for female candidate. The writ petition is not filed by way of public interest litigation. It is relevant to extract decision of this court reported in D.Siva Prasad v. Government of A.P. and others, [2] which reads as under: “ A person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 10. Further, the decision relied on by the petitioner in Government of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. Dr.Pr Lata (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case a notification was issued for appointment whole time basis for the post of Member (Female) in a District Consumer Forum, Delhi and the respondent ther submitted her application for reappointment beyond the stipulated time and in that view of the matter, the Apex Court h that even for reappointment of a sitting member of a District Consumer Forum for another term, she has to fulfill all qualifications and other conditions. In the instant case, the fourth respondent was reappointed in accordance with proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: “Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section(1) and such reappointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee.” With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the G.O. was not issued as per the recommendations of selection committee i.e. D.O. letter dated 14.02.2008, there was a clerical mistake in the G.O. in noting down the cor date of the D.O. letter and the correct date of D.O. letter is 22.09.2008. 11. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the reappointment of the fourth respondent as a Lady Memb District Consumer Forum, Nellore, and that the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the legality or validity of impugned G.O. and the writ petition is devoid of merit. 12. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 02.07.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] 2009 CTJ (Supreme Court (cp) page 6, [2] 2007 (5) ALD 828(DB),