1. Core matter involves directions for functioning of Consumer Fora and pending state decision on applicant's relief. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1911
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of U.P. and others - Petitioners
Versus
Jeet S. Bisht and another - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 8, 11, 15 and...in SLP(C) No. 6928 of 1999 with WP(C) No. 164 of 2002.
Decided On : 04-05-2005
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP) Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the NCDRC Bar Asson. in WP 164/02 : M N Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. Ranji P Thomas, S K Sharma, V N Raghupathy, C K Sucharita, (NP).
For the Union of India : N N Goswami, Sr. Adv., Kiran Bhardwaj, S N Terdal, B K Prasad, (NP) B.V. Balaram Das, (NP).
For the State of Assam : Ms. Krishna Sarma, V K Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, Amrita Bhattacharya, Corporate Law Group, Advs.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Anil Shrivastav and Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocates
For the State of Andhra Pradesh : D Bharathi Reddy, B Vikas, T V Ratnam, (NP)
For the State of Bihar :Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates
For the State of Chhatisgarh : Suparna Srivastava, Deepti Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Prakash Shrivastava, (NP)
For the NCT Delhi :Ashok Bhan, Kiran Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar, Advocates
For the UTs of Daman & Diu : Sunita Sharma, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar D S Mahra, Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar
For the State of Gujarat :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates
For the State of Goa :A Subhashini, Advocate
For the State of Haryana : Kavita Wadia, (NP)
For the State of Himachal Pradesh :- J.S. Attri, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of J & K : Anis Suhrawardy, (NP)
For the State of Jharkhand : Ashok Mathur, (NP)
For the State of Kerala :K.R. Sasiprabhu, MKS Menon and G. Indira, Advocates.
For the State of Manipur :K.H. Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the State of Mizoram :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates.
For the Govt. of Mizoram :K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R Sathish, Advocates.
For the State of Maharashtra :- S S Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates.
For the State of Madhya Pradesh :Satish K. Agnihotri and Rohit Singh, Advocates.
For the State of Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, (NP).
For the State of Nagaland :Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
For the State of Orissa :Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Moushumi Gahlot and Smruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Govt of Pondicherry :V.G. Pragasam, Advocate
For the State of Punjab :R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Genl. S. Krishnaraj and Arun K Sinha, Advocates
For the State of Rajasthan :Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Genl. Naveen Kr. Singh and Shivangi, Advocates
For the State of Sikkim :Brijender Chahar, Jyoti Chahar and Ashok Mathur, Advocates
For the State of Tripura :Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Advocates
For the State of Tamilnadu :R Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, S.N. Jha, Subramonium Prasad, Advocates
For the State of Uttaranchal : Rachana Srivastava, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of UP : R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M. Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP), Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the State of W.B. :Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma, Advocates
For the UT Chandigarh :Kamini Jaiswal and Shomila Bakshi, Advocates
For the Applicants in IAs 8 :Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv., V P Sharma, M.P.S Tomar, Sandhya Goswami and Malvika Trivedi, Advocates
For the Applicant in IA 15/05 : Ravindra Kumar, N.S. Bisht, (NP) V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, MBRS Raju, S. Sunita, S. Sachin, J.B. Ravi, Riju Raj Jamawal, M. Sailaja, S. Srinivasan, Rajeev Sharma, (NP) Sanjay R Hegde, (NP) Radha Shyam Jena, (NP) J.P. Dhanda, (NP) Revathy Raghavan, (NP) T Mahipal, (NP) Pallav Shishodia, (NP)
For the Petitioners: R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP) Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the NCDRC Bar Asson. in WP 164/02 : M N Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. Ranji P Thomas, S K Sharma, V N Raghupathy, C K Sucharita, (NP).
For the Union of India : N N Goswami, Sr. Adv., Kiran Bhardwaj, S N Terdal, B K Prasad, (NP) B.V. Balaram Das, (NP).
For the State of Assam : Ms. Krishna Sarma, V K Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, Amrita Bhattacharya, Corporate Law Group, Advs.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Anil Shrivastav and Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocates
For the State of Andhra Pradesh : D Bharathi Reddy, B Vikas, T V Ratnam, (NP)
For the State of Bihar :Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates
For the State of Chhatisgarh : Suparna Srivastava, Deepti Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Prakash Shrivastava, (NP)
For the NCT Delhi :Ashok Bhan, Kiran Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar, Advocates
For the UTs of Daman & Diu : Sunita Sharma, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar D S Mahra, Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar
For the State of Gujarat :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates
For the State of Goa :A Subhashini, Advocate
For the State of Haryana : Kavita Wadia, (NP)
For the State of Himachal Pradesh :- J.S. Attri, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of J & K : Anis Suhrawardy, (NP)
For the State of Jharkhand : Ashok Mathur, (NP)
For the State of Kerala :K.R. Sasiprabhu, MKS Menon and G. Indira, Advocates.
For the State of Manipur :K.H. Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the State of Mizoram :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates.
For the Govt. of Mizoram :K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R Sathish, Advocates.
For the State of Maharashtra :- S S Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates.
For the State of Madhya Pradesh :Satish K. Agnihotri and Rohit Singh, Advocates.
For the State of Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, (NP).
For the State of Nagaland :Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
For the State of Orissa :Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Moushumi Gahlot and Smruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Govt of Pondicherry :V.G. Pragasam, Advocate
For the State of Punjab :R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Genl. S. Krishnaraj and Arun K Sinha, Advocates
For the State of Rajasthan :Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Genl. Naveen Kr. Singh and Shivangi, Advocates
For the State of Sikkim :Brijender Chahar, Jyoti Chahar and Ashok Mathur, Advocates
For the State of Tripura :Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Advocates
For the State of Tamilnadu :R Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, S.N. Jha, Subramonium Prasad, Advocates
For the State of Uttaranchal : Rachana Srivastava, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of UP : R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M. Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP), Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the State of W.B. :Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma, Advocates
For the UT Chandigarh :Kamini Jaiswal and Shomila Bakshi, Advocates
For the Applicants in IAs 8 :Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv., V P Sharma, M.P.S Tomar, Sandhya Goswami and Malvika Trivedi, Advocates
For the Applicant in IA 15/05 : Ravindra Kumar, N.S. Bisht, (NP) V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, MBRS Raju, S. Sunita, S. Sachin, J.B. Ravi, Riju Raj Jamawal, M. Sailaja, S. Srinivasan, Rajeev Sharma, (NP) Sanjay R Hegde, (NP) Radha Shyam Jena, (NP) J.P. Dhanda, (NP) Revathy Raghavan, (NP) T Mahipal, (NP) Pallav Shishodia, (NP)
The court granted procedural extensions for the state to finalize administrative decisions and allowed the petitioner to file updated statements to ensure court directions regarding the functionality of consumer fora are based on current statistics and facts.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Fora - Administration and Functionality - Petitioner seeking directions to make consumer forums fully functional - In view of subsequent developments, the matter requires a fresh hearing - Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh and complete statement setting out relevant facts, statistics, problematic areas, and suggestions for resolution. (Para 5)
(B) Procedural Law - Time for compliance - State granted six weeks' time to finalize a decision on a specific relief and bring the same on record. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The matter involves several interlocutory applications and a writ petition. The applicants sought specific relief, for which the state indicated that a favorable decision was pending high-level clearance. Additionally, a petition was filed regarding the operational efficiency and functionality of various consumer fora, necessitating updated data and suggestions for resolution.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the writ petition concerning consumer fora needs to be heard afresh due to subsequent developments and allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed updated statement.
Issues: Whether the state should be granted additional time to finalize a decision on specific relief and whether the petitioner should be permitted to update the factual grounds and statistics regarding the functionality of consumer fora.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its procedural discretion to allow the state time for administrative clearance and permitted the updating of pleadings to ensure that the court's directions are based on current facts and statistics.
Result: Time granted to the state for finalizing decisions and to the petitioner for filing fresh statements; notice issued to the concerned state government.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
ORDER :
I.A. No. 8/2003 in SLP(C) No. 6928/1999
1. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has pressed in particular relief (f) sought for in the application. The learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that a decision in this regard has been taken favourable to the applicant and it is awaiting clearance at the highest level. Six weeks's time is allowed for the purpose of finalising the a decision and bringing the same on record.
2. The attention of the learned counsel for the State of U.P. is invited to the order dated 17.1.2005 made on I.A. Nos. 12 and 13. The learned counsel for the State states that the appointed time of four months is yet to expire and the decision will be taken within that much time and then brought on record through an affidavit.
I.A. No. 11/2003
3. To come up for hearing with W.P.(C) No. 164/2002.
I.A. No. 15/2005
4. Issue notice to the State of Uttaranchal.
WP(C) No. 164/2002
5. The matter would need to be heard afresh in view of several subsequent developments. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed liberty of filing a fresh and complete statement setting out the relevant facts and statistics, the problematic areas wherein directions of the Court are sought for, for the purpose of making several Consumer Fora fully functional, and the suggestions which the Petitioner chooses to put forth for the consideration of the Court in the direction of resolution. As prayed, four weeks' time is allowed for the purpose.
