Tripura High Court Sets Aside Removal of District Consumer Commission President, Cites Violation of Natural Justice

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, May 27, 2026

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Tripura on Tuesday set aside the removal order issued against Sri Gautam Sarkar, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), West Tripura, observing that the authorities had violated the principles of natural justice and failed to follow due legal procedure.

The division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Dr T Amarnath Goud and Hon’ble Justice S Datta Purkayastha delivered the oral judgment in WP(C) No. 354 of 2026 titled Sri Gautam Sarkar vs The State of Tripura & Others. The judgment was delivered on May 26, 2026.

According to the case records, petitioner Sri Gautam Sarkar, son of late Dhirendra Kumar Sarkar and resident of Abhoynagar, Agartala, had challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry proceedings which culminated in a notification dated February 12, 2026 removing him from the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura.

The respondents in the case included the State of Tripura represented by the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, the Law Department, Director and senior officials of the Consumer Affairs Department, and the Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Appearing for the petitioner was advocate Ms. Megha Sarkar, while the State respondents were represented by Government Advocate Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya and Additional Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma.

The petitioner contended before the court that he had been appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura by notification dated April 10, 2025 and was discharging his duties lawfully. However, following certain complaints and allegations, an inquiry was initiated against him under the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020.

The writ petition alleged that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in gross violation of Rules 8 and 9 of the 2020 Rules and also violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further claimed that copies of complaints, witness statements, inquiry materials and relevant documents relied upon by the authorities were never supplied to him despite repeated requests.

It was also argued that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal of allegations, thereby preventing effective participation in the inquiry proceedings. According to the petitioner, the inquiry report was finalized and acted upon arbitrarily and in a predetermined manner.

The petitioner sought multiple reliefs before the High Court, including quashing of the inquiry report dated January 22, 2026, quashing of the removal notification dated February 12, 2026, reinstatement to the post of President of DCDRC, West Tripura with consequential service benefits, and interim stay on the removal proceedings.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the High Court observed that the impugned removal order was issued without following the due process of law.

The bench specifically noted:

“In the process of removal of the petitioner, the respondents ought to have issue the show-cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner, thereafter, the respondents authority ought to have passed a reasoned order. But, in the present case, the respondents have failed to do so.”

The court further held that the principles of natural justice had clearly been violated in the matter.

The judgment stated:

“This Court is of the opinion that since the principle of natural justice has not been followed in the present case, impugned order of removal dated 12.02.2026 issued against the petitioner is set aside.”

Court’s Final Order While setting aside the removal notification dated February 12, 2026, the High Court directed the respondents to issue a proper show-cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

However, the court also clarified that during the fresh process, the petitioner would not be entitled to perform duties as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura.

The bench observed:

“However, it is made clear that during this process, the petitioner is not entitled to perform his duties as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura.”

With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of and all pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

The judgment is expected to have wider significance regarding adherence to statutory procedure and principles of natural justice in disciplinary and removal proceedings involving quasi-judicial authorities and constitutional protections under administrative law.

more news...