Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Dec 20, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Google



New Delhi
News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

New Delhi Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

High Court order quashing Kannadasan’s appointment stayed

J. Venkatesan

Apex court directs matter to be listed for hearing on January 22

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.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



New Delhi

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |



News Update



The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu