Date:20/12/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/20/stories/2008122051560400.htm

New Delhi

High Court order quashing Kannadasan’s appointment stayed

J. Venkatesan

Counsel for State says Kannadasan fulfils eligibility condition
Locus standi of petitioners to file quo warranto plea questioned

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed operation of a Madras High Court judgment quashing the appointment of Justice N. Kannadasan as president of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

A Bench of Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Mukundakam Sharma, staying the judgment dated December 12, recorded an undertaking that Mr. Kannadasan would proceed on leave till the apex court disposed of the matter.

The Bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to send, in a sealed cover, original records relating to recommendation/appointment of Mr. Kannadasan as president of the Commission.

The Bench, while asking the Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati to assist the court, directed the matter to be listed for further hearing on January 22. Justice Kannadasan was appointed as president of the Commission by a notification dated July 26, 2008. On a quo warranto petition filed by Anna Mathew and 10 others, the High Court quashed the notification.

The State and Mr. Kannadasan filed the present special leave petitions challenging the judgment.

Appearing for the State, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said there was no bar under the Consumer Protection Act to appoint a retired Additional Judge as president of the Commission.

He said the relevant provision “only says a person is or has been a judge of the High Court.” Hence Mr. Kannadasan fulfilled the eligibility condition.

Senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and Atul Nanda appearing for Mr. Kannadasan questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file a quo warranto petition.

Senior counsel Indra Jaising and Prashant Bhushan appearing for the respondents (petitioners in the High Court) contended that Mr. Kannadasan was ineligible to occupy the post as he was not confirmed as a permanent judge of the High Court.

In its SLP, the State said the impugned judgment effectively set aside a decision taken by the Full Court and raised serious questions of law with far reaching ramifications on the issue of appointment of judicial officers. While setting aside the appointment, the High Court had passed strictures against the Chief Justice of the High Court.

It said the Union Law Ministry had clarified that Mr. Kannadasan was entitled to the benefits available to a retired High Court judge. Only thereafter was his name included in the panel of three names suggested by the High Court.

The government, after due consideration, appointed him to the post.

The SLP prayed for quashing the judgment and an interim stay of its operation.