STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINICIPAL SECRETARY & ORS versus ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 18-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
v.
 ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION
(Civil Appeal No. 2740 of 2007)
MAY 18, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
ss.10(3), 16(2) and 30 – Paucity of Infrastructure in the
Consumer Fora – As per direction of Supreme Court, Union of India
framed Model Rules prescribing objective norms for implementing
provisions of ss. 10(1)(b), 16(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) with regard to
appointment of members respectively of District Fora, State
Commissions and National Commission – State Governments agreed
to adopt the Model Rules by framing appropriate rules in exercise
of the rule making power u/s. 30 – Direction to State Governments
to frame appropriate rules in exercise of rule-making power u/s. 30
in accordance with final Draft Model Rules – Directions to Union
of India to consider requirement of National Commission for
sanctioning additional posts and to consider request of National
Commission to make additional space available – Status report
regarding draft Consumer Protection (Amendment) Rules, 1987
(which have been referred to the Ministry of Finance for its
concurrence) to be apprised to this Court and also compliance of
other direction to be apprised to the Court – Matters adjourned –
Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 – r.11.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 2740
of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.1998 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No.968/1997
WITH
Writ Petition(Civil) No.164/2002.
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 503
 503
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
  Maninder Singh, ASG (NP), P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Meru Sagar
Samantray,   K. Luikang Michael, Ankur Prakash, Tushar Bakshi, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, V.N. Raghupathy,
R. Balasubramanian, Wasim A. Quadri, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay
Amritanshu, Ms. Aarti Sharma,  Ms. Niranjana Singh, Shekhar Vyas,
Arun Pathak, M.K. Maroria, Raj Bahadur, Rachana Srivastava,
A.K. Sharma, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Edward
Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh., Ms. Maibam
Babina, Sibo Sankar Mishra,  Ms. Hemantika Wahi,  Ms. Jesal Wahi,
Ms. Vishakha, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Aruna Mathur,  Avneesh
Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, M/s Arputham
Aruna and Co.,  Ms Prachi Mishra, Arjun Garg, Chaitanya, Suneet Padhi,
Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Rajesh Srivastava, Gopal Singh, Kumar Milind,
Manish Kumar, T. N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, T. Veera Reddy,
T.V. George, K.N. Madhuroodhanan, R. Sathish, Shuvodeep Roy,  Sayooj
Mohandas M., Rituraj Biswas,   S. S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Sandeep
Singh, Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar,   Milind   Kumar,   V. G. Pragasam,
S. Prabu   Ramasubramanian,  S. Manuraj, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi,
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, S. Srinivasan, M/s
Corporate Law Group, Anil Shrivastav, G. Prakash, B.S. Banthia,
Ms.Sumita Hazarika, R. Gopalakrishnan, Radha Shyam Jena, Kuldip
Singh, Tara Chandra Sharma, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ms. A. Subhashini,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co.,
B. Balaji,  Ashok K. Srivastava, Ashok Mathur, Rajeev Sharma,
K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia,
T. Mahipal, T. V. Ratnam, Advs for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The issue which arises for
consideration in the present civil appeal and writ petition pertains to the
paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer Fora all over the country.
2. This Court vide order dated 14th January, 2016 constituted a
three-member committee presided over by Justice Arijit Pasayat
[Retired] to examine various aspects as enumerated in the Order. The
said committee was requested to forward its deliberations to the various
State Governments.
3.  By Order dated 21st November, 2016 this Court issued directions
to the Union Government to frame Model Rules  for the purpose of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
ensuring uniformity by the State Governments in the exercise of the
rule-making power under Sections 10(3) and 16(2) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. The directions issued by this Court are reproduced
hereunder:
“(i) The Union Government shall for the purpose of ensuring
Uniformity in the exercise of the rule making power under Section
10(3) and Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
frame model rules for adoption by the State Gov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.