Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Gulbarga District Forum constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Her appointment was made as per the Notification dated 10-8-1989. This Notification also stated that the jurisdiction of the said forum shall extend to four revenue Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur, Bellary and Bidar. A formal order of appointment was subsequently made on 21-9-1989 as per the Notification of the said date. However, on 24th April, 1990 Bidar Forum was constituted by a notification, consisting of the same President and members including the petitioner. By another Notification dated 8th November, 1991 the District forum for the District of Bidar was notified as consisting of Mr. Byrappa as the President and two members Mr. Kashinath Rao Pule and Smt. Guramma. Obviously this was pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court directing that each of the District shall have an independent District Forum.
2. On 15th November, 1991, the petitioner wrote to the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Karnataka bringing to his notice that the petitioner is a resident of Bidar proper and that she used to attend hearings at Bellary, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar as a member of the common forum and that she had to travel 3 to 4 hundred kms. and she had been attacked with throat disease due to dust allergy. She also enclosed a medical certificate. She has stated that since a separate district forum for Bidar had been Constituted she may be included in the said forum and obviously due to oversight she was not included in the said District forum for Bidar though the practice had been to appoint the local person in the case of a lady member.
3. On 16th December, 1991 (Annexure H), Notification was issued appointing the second respondent Smt. Ardhana Triwari as a member of the District Consumer Forum of Gulbarga in place of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by this Notification.
4. The composition of a District forum isprovided for in S. 10 of the Act. This requires a lady social worker also to be a member of the forum. As per S. 10(2) every member of the District forum shall hold office for a term of 5 years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for re-appointment. The proviso provides for the resignation by the member concerned.
4A. Section 10(3) of the Act refers to the salary or honorarium and other allowances payable and other terms and conditions of service of the members of the forum which are to be prescribed by the State Government under the rules. Rule making power under S. 30 is vested in the State Government. In exercise of this power of making the rules, the Karnataka Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 has been notified. R. 3(5) provides for removal from the office the President or member of a District forum on the grounds stated in sub-rules (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). However, the proviso states that no order of removal from office of the President or member on the grounds specified in Cls. (d) and (e) shall be made unless the concerned person has been given an opportunity of being heard. Cl. (d) refers to the acquisition of financial or other interest by the member or the President which is likely to affect the functioning of the member or is prejudicial to his interest as the President or as the member and Cl. (e) refers to abusing of the position by the Member or the President.
5. I am of the view that the concerned authority shall have to give an opportunity of being heard before exercising the power of removal even in other cases not covered by the above proviso. For example, if the member has to be removed on the ground of physical or mental disability, the President or the member concerned if notified could show that the allegation against him is unfounded. Similarly, suppose the Government opines a person as insolvent person but in fact he was not so adjudged, order of the State Government will be based on an incorrect allegation.
6. It is unnecessary to consider whether R. 3(5) falls within the scope of S. 10(3) of the Act and whether the State Government can make such a rule without a specific conferment of a power to frame such a rule. On the assumption that the Rule is intra vires. I proceed to consider its application. Since the removal from the office affects the rights of the officeholder's tenure prescribed under the Act, the minimum procedural requirement would be to follow the principle of natural justice before exercising the power of removal.
7. In the instant case the statement of objections filed by the first respondents states that the petitioner was removed under R. 3(5)(c). There is also a statement that the petitioner was removed at her own request as per her letter dated 15-11-1991. R. 5(3)(c) cannot be invoked in this manner without actually being satisfied that petitioner has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a member. A proper enquiry should have been held after giving the petitioner an opportunity. The manner of this enquiry need not be elaborated here except pointing out that the enquiry shall satisfy the principles of natural justice.
8. The assertion of the first respondent that the petitioner has been removed at her own request also cannot be accepted. In her letter dated 15-11-1991 the petitioner has stated that she is a resident of Bidar proper and that she was attacked by a throat disease due to dust allergy and that she may be included in the Bidar District forum. Nowhere she states that she resigns from her present membership of the Gulbarga forum. The letter cannot be read as a letter of resignation at all. The letter also cannot be read as a letter admitting chronic illness which renders her incapable of functioning as a member.
9. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. Consequently the Government order dated 16th November, 1991 notifying the appointment of the second respondent in place of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue as a member of the Gulbarga District Consumer Redressal Forum. The petition is allowed accordingly.
10. Petition allowed.