SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
ALL U. P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2740 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 164 OF 2002
Decided On : 15-12-2017
ORDER
1 By an order dated 14 January 2016, this Court while dealing with the paucity of infrastructure in the consumer fora, constituted a three Member Committee consisting of :
1. Dr Justice Arijit Pasayat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.
2. Ms Justice Rekha Sharma, Former Judge, High Court of Delhi.
3. The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs or his nominee.
2 The Committee was requested to examine the following aspects :
(1) The infrastructural requirements of the respective State Commissions in terms of office space for the Presiding Officer, members and supporting staff and whether the same has been provided for. In case the requirement is not satisfied, what is the extent of deficiency and possible ways and means of removing the same.
(2) The vacancy position of President/Members/Presiding Officers in the National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora and the steps that need to be taken for ensuring that vacancies are filled-up on a timely basis.
(3) Need for additional benches of the National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora in the States or in any one of them having regard to 11 the workload and the difficulties/inconvenience which a consumer dispute litigant has to face to access the National Commission, State Commissions and/or District Fora.
(4) The conditions of eligibility, if any prescribed, for appointment as non-judicial members of National Commission, State Commissions and the District Fora. In case no such conditions of eligibility are prescribed whether there is a need for doing so and what could be the conditions of eligibility for such appointments having regard to the nature of work and the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(5) The nature and extent of Administrative Powers, if any, conferred upon the Presidents of the State Commissions and the President of the District Fora. In case no such powers have been conferred whether the same need to be conferred and if so to what extent and effect.
(6) The service conditions currently applicable including pay-scales admissible to President and Members, Judicial/Non-Judicial of the National Commission, State 12 Commissions and the District Fora and in case no service conditions are stipulated what could be reasonable conditions of service applicable to such appointees.
(7) The minimum staff required for the National Commission and respective State Commissions/District Fora and in case no such standard is recognized or the staff provided is inadequate having regard to the nature and extent of work to be done by the concerned Commissions and Fora what could be the norms for providing the same.
(8) Desirability and feasibility of creating a separate cadre for staff in the National and State Commissions and the District Fora.
(9) Any other aspect that the Committee may consider relevant and helpful with a view to making the Consumer Disputes Fora/Commissions more effective, efficient and their process speedy.
3. The Committee was requested to forward its deliberations to the state governments, on the completion of their deliberations qua each state to facilitate appropriate steps in a time bound manner.
4. Thereafter, by an order dated 21 November 2016, this Court issued the following directions :
(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 governments. The model rules shall be framed within four months and shall be submitted to this Court for its approval;
(ii) The Union Government shall also frame within four months model rules prescribing objective norms for implementing the provisions 24 of Section 10(1)(b), Section 16(1)(b) and Section 20(1)(b) in regard to the appointment of members respectively of the District fora, State Commissions and National Commission;
(iii) The Union Government sh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.