STATE OF U P AND ORS versus ALL U P CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 21-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 851 
STATE OF U P AND ORS 
v. 
ALL U P CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION 
(Civil Appeal No. 2740 of2007) 
NOVEMBER21, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND 
L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Effective implementation of 
A 
B 
the Act - Deficiency of infrastructure in the adjudicatory fora -
C 
Constitution of Justice Arijit Pasayat Committee to look into 
deficiencies - Interim report by the Committee to the effect that the 
cons11111er fora did not function effectively due to a poor 
organizational set up, grossly inadequate infrastructure, absence 
of adequate and trained manpower and lack of qualified members 
in the adjudicating bodies - Suggestions given to the Central D 
Government and State Government - Failure of State Governments 
to respond to the suggestions - Held: Systemic overhaul of the entire 
infrastructure is necessary if the Act is not to beco111e a dead letter 
- Findings of the Com111ittee in the interim report are entitled to 
deference - Though powers relating to the appointments and E 
ad111inistration of the State fora lie with the State Govern111ent, vesting 
of the rule making power in the State Governments may result in a 
lack of uniformity of rules across the country, both in regard to the 
ter111s and conditions of service and appointment - It would result 
in wide variation in standards and great deal of subjectivity, and 
bureaucratic and political interference - In view thereof. directions 
F 
issued to the Centre Govern111ent to fra111e model Rules relating to 
administration, selection and appointment of me111bers, infrastructure 
etc., at al/ levels of consumer fora - ss. 24B,6(1)(b),JO(l)(b), 30. 
This Court issued several directions as regards the deficiency of 
infrastructure in the adjudicatory fora under the Consumer Protection 
G 
Act, 1986. A Committee presided by Justice Arijit Pasayat was 
constituted to look into deficiencies in the working of the fora. The 
Committee assessed the prevailing conditions in different States. 
Thereafter, the Committee submitted an Interim Report to the effect 
that the consumer fora did not function as effectively as expected due to 
H 
851 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
a poor organizational set up, grossly inadequate infrastructure, absence 
of adequate and trained manpower and lack of qualified members in the 
adjudicating bodies. The suggestions were given to the Central 
Government and the State Governments. The State Governments failed 
to respond to the suggestions for streamlining the state of affairs. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Adjourning the matters for further directions and for 
reporting compliance, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The interim report of the Committee provides 
an unfortunate reflection of the state of affairs in the consumer 
fora at the district, state and national level. That these bodies 
which are vested with important functions of a judicial nature 
continue to work despite the prevalence of such adverse 
conditions and in the face of the apathy of the governments both 
at the national and state level is a matter which requires immediate 
intervention by this Court. A systemic overhaul of the entire 
infrastructure is necessary if the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
is not to become a dead letter. With the proliferation of goods 
and services in a rapidly growing economy, Parliament envisaged 
the enactment to be the corner-stone of a vibrant consumer 
movement. Reality has been distant from the aspirations of the 
law. The state of affairs revealed before the Court warrants 
systemic changes. [Para 9](861-G-H; 862-A] 
1.2 One of the principal problems governing the functioning 
of the district fora and the State Commissions is the absence of 
clarity in regard to the exercise of administrative and disciplinary 
control. Section 24 vests administrative control over the State 
F 
Commissions in the President of the National Commission and 
over the district fora in the Presidents of the State Commissions. 
The extent of the administrative control shall be in all matters 
,.-fating to the administrative functioning of the forum concerned 
including but not limited to assignment of judicial and 
G 
H 
administrative work; posting, transfer and control over members; 
selection, appointment and disciplinary matters relating to the 
staff of the district fora and State Commissions and in relation 
provisioning and meeting the infrastructural requirements of 
those bodi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.