The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a comprehensive approach to address deficiencies in the infrastructure, manpower, and working conditions of Consumer Fora and Commissions, through the constitution of a Committee to make recommendations for improvement.

ORDER :

This appeal is directed against an order dated 8th October, 1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.968 of 1997 whereby the High Court has directed the State Government to set up five additional Consumer For a at the State level in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The scope of the proceedings though initially limited has been in terms of a series of orders passed by this Court widened in public interest keeping in view the fact that the problem of deficiency in the infrastructure available to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and District Fora has over the years become endemic and a pan India affair. Writ Petition No.164 of 2002 which came to be registered as a PIL on the basis of an affidavit filed by NCDRC Bar Association before this Court in public interest, also highlights deficiencies that are affecting the working of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Fora.

2. Several orders as noted above have been passed in these proceedings from time to time over the past eight years or so. Reference to all those orders is in our opinion unnecessary. All that we need say is that when the matter came up before us on 30th July, 2015 we requested Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Solicitor General to take instructions from the President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the National Commission") as to the nature and extent of deficiencies if any in terms of infrastructure available to the National Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (for short "the State Commissions" and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora (for short "the District Fora") in different States throughout the country. Mr. Patwalia offered to do the needful and to file a status report. He submitted that apart from paucity of staff and space several other deficiencies such as non-filling up of vacancies and poor/unsatisfactory conditions of service applicable to the staff and employees of the State Commissions and District Fora also deserved to be addressed.

3. An affidavit was accordingly filed by the Registrar of the National Commission which enumerates the nature and the extent of deficiencies in terms of infrastructure and staff available to the National Commission, State Commissions and District Fora in different States throughout the country. It was in the light of the averments made in the said affidavit that Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General was requested to accept notice on behalf of the Government of India and take instructions and look into the matter. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned ASG, has pursuant to the above filed an affidavit. He submits that the responsibility of providing adequate infrastructure and filling up of the vacancies and prescribing conditions of service applicable to those associated with the Consumer Fora lies with the State Governments concerned. It was in that view that we had by order dated 13th October, 2015 requested Mr. Maninder Singh to take instructions whether a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court with such Member as may be recommended by the Government of India could be constituted to examine not only issues raised by the appellant with regard to alleged deficiencies in the infrastructure, manpower and matters incidental thereto but also the need and feasibility of bringing about a broad, if not a complete, uniformity in the terms of employment of the Presiding Officers and other staff engaged for implementation of the provisions of the Act. Mr. Maninder Singh has accordingly taken instructions and filed an affidavit sworn by Shri Gokil Chandra Rout, Deputy Secretary in the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. In paras 7 to 10 of the said affidavit the Government of India have stated thus:

"7. That in compliance with the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court the respondent Union of India has placed the foregoing submissions in response t