Agartala, 27th May 2026: The Tripura High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in the matter concerning Gautam Sarkar, former President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), West Tripura. The Court set aside the removal order issued against him, holding that the action was taken without adherence to due process and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
A division bench consisting of Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha pronounced the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Sarkar. He had challenged the legality of the inquiry proceedings that culminated in his removal. The Court directed the authorities to issue a fresh show-cause notice, allow Sarkar to present his explanation, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Importantly, the Court clarified that Sarkar would not resume his role as President of the DCDRC during the interim period.
Sarkar had been appointed to the post on April 10, 2025. Following complaints and allegations, an inquiry was initiated under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. This inquiry led to a notification dated February 12, 2026, removing him from office. The respondents in the case included the State of Tripura, represented through its Chief Secretary, the Secretary of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, officials from the Law Department, senior officers of the Consumer Affairs Department, and the Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Advocate Megha Sarkar appeared for the petitioner, while the State was represented by Government Advocate Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya and Additional Government Advocate Mangal Debbarma. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the inquiry and removal process violated statutory safeguards under the Consumer Protection Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the 2020 Rules. She emphasized that crucial documents, including complaints, witness statements, and inquiry materials, were not supplied to Gautam Sarkar, depriving him of an effective opportunity to defend himself or cross-examine witnesses.
Megha Sarkar further contended that the proceedings were conducted hastily, without jurisdictional propriety, and in disregard of constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21. She described the removal as arbitrary and contrary to the procedure established by law.
The High Court, while considering these submissions, observed that the authorities had failed to issue a proper show-cause notice and pass a reasoned order before removing Sarkar. This lapse, the Court noted, rendered the removal unsustainable. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s insistence on procedural fairness and natural justice in administrative actions, particularly in matters involving statutory commissions.
This case highlights the importance of natural justice, due process, and the safeguards under the Consumer Protection Act in ensuring accountability and fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings.
