LexCOMMON CAUSE REGISTERED SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY ·-., v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JANUARY 7, 1993 B (A.M. AHMADI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) Consumer Protection Ac~ 1986: Section 9-Setting up of District Fora-Non-implementation by some c States/Union Territories-Stop-gap ammgement of District Judges functioning as Presidents of District Fora-Termination of-Statutory requirement of constituting District Forum for each district or for 2 or 1 districts clubbed together-Directions to State Governments/Union TerritorieHssued. ,.._. D 1be. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisaged a three-tier fora com- prising the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Com- mission for redressal of grievances of consumers. 1be Petitioner-Society preferred the present Writ Petitions complainilig that the implementation of the provisions was sluggish since the machinery for redressing the grievances of poor consumers at the base-level viz. the District Forum had ~ E not been set up In 1111 tbe districts except a few. - As a stop-gap arrangement, this Court on 17 .1.90 directed that every district should have a District Forum with the District Judge as its President. This Court further directed the State Governments concerned to appeint two more members In every District Forum. It also scrutinised F the Information received from vairous States/Union Territories and con- sidered the difficulties faced by them in the matter or setting up District y- Forum In each district. 1berealler, disposing of the Writ Petitions by giving directions to G States/Union Territories, this Court HELD : 1. Under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it Is the responsibility or the State Government to set-up a District Forum r- l with the approval of Central Government. 1be State Government cannot absolve Itself of this responsibility by virtually perpetuating the ad hoc H arrangement. The High Courts have not withdrawn their personnel only 10 • COMMON CAUSE v. U.0.1. 11 because they have respected this Court's request made to them. But there A Is a limit beyond which an ad hoc stop-gap arrangement cannot last. In the circumstances it is most appropriate to indicate to the State Govern· ments that the ad hoc arrangement evolved by this Court will terminate within a fixed time-frame. [17E,F) 2. It is directed that wherever a sitting Disbict Judge is functioning B as the President or a District F ornm, if the_ workload exceeds the minimum monthly load or 150 cases consistently for a six month period, the High Court will convey the same to the State Government/Union Territory Administration which will within a period or six mm;ths from the date or receipt or the communication appoint a regular independent Disbict C · Forum as envisaged by section 9 of the Act. After the expiry or the said six months period, the High Court will be free to ·terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement or loaning the services or a sitting Disbict Judge work as the President of the District Forum under intimation to the State Government/Union Territory Administration and it will then be the D responsibility of the latter to make provision for carrying out the purposes or the Act. [18C·Dl 3. It is futher directed that in districts where the workload does not exceed the minimum f1Xed by this Court's order dated August 5, 1991, the ad hoc arrangement may continue for one year during which period the E State Government/Union Territory Administration will take steps to con· stitute an independent Disbict Forum for each district or if the Central Government permits one such forum for 2 or 3 districts clubbed together. After the expiry of the period of one year, the concerned High Courts will be free to terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangment of loaning the F services of sitting District Judges to work as President of the District Forum in which case it will be the responsibility or the State Govern- ment/Union Territory Administration to make provision for carrying out the purposes of the Act. [18E,GI 4. A copy or this order. will be sent to the Chief Secretary or each State Government/Union Territory Administration to take steps to meet its statutOry obligations under the Act within the above time-frame with a view to ensuring that the interest of the consumers is fully protected. Needless to point out that more than sufficient time has been allowed to the State Governments/Union Territories to fulfil their st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.