Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Petitions questioning appointment allowed

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday allowed writ petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto questioning the legality and validity of the appointment of N. Kannadasan as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and to declare that a G.O. of July this year appointing Mr.Kannadasan as President as illegal and unconstitutional.

While declining to suspend its order, the High Court granted leave to Mr.Kannadasan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

However, the court dismissed as being misconceived and irrelevant a writ petition for issuing a declaration that the decision taken by the Full Court in July this year to treat Mr.Kannadasan, a former Additional Judge of the High Court, as a retired Judge as unconstitutional and non-est in law. Advocates had challenged the appointment of Mr.Kannadasan on the ground that he was ineligible to be considered. The legality of the Chief Justice’s recommendation was also questioned by alleging that an Additional Judge, who had not been confirmed, particularly on the basis of allegations touching upon honesty and integrity, could not be considered as eligible to hold any other post requiring exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power.

In its 100-page common judgment, a Division Bench comprising Justices P.K.Misra and A.Kulasekaran said in its considered opinion what Article 224-A of the Constitution envisaged or the Supreme Court in Ashok Tanwar’s case recognised was that a Judge who laid down office under normal circumstances on attaining the age fixed would be eligible, but an additional Judge who had not been confirmed and whose term had not been extended, obviously could not be considered as a retired Judge or “has been a Judge” or “has held the office of a Judge.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu