Questions over selection of State Commission members
HERALD REPORTER
PANJIM, APRIL 17
Consumer rights activists, village groups and forums, women’s collectives and individuals have petitioned the Chief Minister’s office urging him to intervene and ensure that the two persons to be appointed as members of the State Consumer Redressal Commission are honest, competent and integral individuals having a respectable public standing.
The term of one of the two members of the Commission who is presently holding charge ends on April 30, 2010. If new members are not appointed for the next term the proceedings of the Commission will automatically come to a standstill.
Director of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Gurudas Pilarnekar mentioned he too received some 10 to 12 petitions yesterday expressing apprehensiveness whether right candidates will be selected for the important posts.
Pilarnekar said interviews were conducted on April 9 for the two posts and the Selection Committee headed by the President of the Commission has sent in their recommendation to the government for its approval.
However, legal fraternity members said today was April 17 and it will take another few days for the Government approval to come. After the Government approval is granted it will take another eight to ten days for the Director of Civil Supplies to issue appointment orders.
The question doing the rounds of the corridors of the Commission is will the Commission be closed down from May 1 onwards if the two appointments are not done by this April 30.
While the legal members are worried about functionality of the Commission, the several petitions that have flooded the CM’s office have raised questions whether right persons will be selected to the posts.
The petitions have brought to the notice of the CM that there shouldn’t be an episode witnessed last time over the selection of president of the North Goa Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum.
The appointment was made for a five-year term in spite of the fact that she was not eligible for the post on account of her age. At the time of her appointment she was 32 years when she should have been 35 as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
