SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 815

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
In Re: Inaction of the Governments in Appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Inadequate Infrastructure Across India – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar, Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, Ms. Supriya Pandita, Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Ms. Preveen Bhatia, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Mr. Aditya Narain, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Ms. Priyashree Sharma, Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Ms. Shivani Vij, Mr. Arnav Narain, Ms. Anushree Narain, Mr. Arjun Jain, Mr. Mishra Raj Shekhar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Balbir Singh, Mr. B.K. Satija, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Mr. Harish Pandey, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mr. Harish Pandey, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mr. S.K. Singhania, Mr. Anil Hooda, Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Mr. Tadimalla Bhakar Gowtham, Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Mr. Bhaskar Goutham, Mr. G.S. Makker, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Sachin Patil, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Mr. Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. Anil Grover, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. Navin Gupta, Mr. Anil Grover, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. Amit Sahni, Ms. Shahnaaz Rahman, Mr. Anil Grover, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Ms. Diksha Rai, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mr. Ashish Madaan, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Anvit Seemansh, Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Arun Singh, Mr. Vidit Anand, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mr. Surinder Singh Manak, Mr. Parijat Som, Mr. Salik Ram, Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Mr. Vishal Banshal, Mr. G. Prakash, Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Mr. Krishna Shree Devee, Mr. Savrabh Choudhary, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Mr. K.V. Khlyongdoh, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Mr. P.S. Negi, Mr. Siddesh Kotwal, Mr. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Mr. Akash Singh, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, Mr. Chandan Maity, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Mr. R.K. Rathore, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Samten Doma, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Arpit Prakash, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. D. Kumanan, Mr. Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Ganvi Anand, Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Ahiwan Mishra, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Mr. Aditya Prakash, Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Ms. G. Indira, Ms. C. Rubavathi, Mr. Subodh S. Patil, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Shankey Agrawal, Ms. Astha Sharma, Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, Ms. Radhika Chaturvedi, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Madhu Chopra, Ms. Manju Jaitley, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Mr. Gopal Jha, Mr. Nishant Verma, Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Mr. Alim Anvar, Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Mr. Aravindh S.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, including the submission of utilization certificates and the implementation of mediation cells and e-filing systems.

Headnote:

Amicus Curiae - Compliance with Consumer Protection Act - - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, focusing on the status of vacancies of President and Members in the State Commission and District Commissions of States/UTs, staff vacancies, utilization certificate status, and implementation of mediation cells and e-filing systems. The court emphasized the importance of timely submission of utilization certificates and directed the setting up of mediation cells and implementation of e-filing systems. The court also highlighted the need for infrastructure up-gradation and progress tracking.

Fact of the Case:

The court discussed compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, focusing on the status of vacancies of President and Members in the State Commission and District Commissions of States/UTs, staff vacancies, and utilization certificate status.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized the importance of timely submission of utilization certificates and directed the setting up of mediation cells and implementation of e-filing systems. The court also highlighted the need for infrastructure up-gradation and progress tracking.

Issues: Compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, status of vacancies, utilization certificate submission, implementation of mediation cells and e-filing systems, and infrastructure up-gradation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for timely compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, addressing staff vacancies, ensuring timely submission of utilization certificates, and implementing mediation cells and e-filing systems.

Final Decision: The court directed the setting up of mediation cells, implementation of e-filing systems, and emphasized the importance of timely submission of utilization certificates. The court also highlighted the need for infrastructure up-gradation and progress tracking.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 40925/2022

1. Learned Amicus Curiae agrees that the costs in this case should be Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-. Ordered accordingly.

2. The last order stands modified to that extent. The costs to be deposited within 10 days.

3. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

4. Applications for exemption from filing notarized affidavits and exemption from filing O.T. are allowed.

5. Delay condoned in payments of costs. Application stands allowed.

6. I.A. No. 54615/2022 for extension of time to comply with order dated 23.02.2022 stands disposed of in view of order passed today.

7. The status report has been filed by the learned Amicus Curiae in pursuance to the last two orders dated 01.12.2021 and 23.02.2022. Learned Amicus Curiae has taken us through the report and also the annexure to it.

TABLE OF RESPONSES/AFFIDAVITS RECEIVED POST 23.02.2022 (ANNXURE-A)

8. Annexure-A is the table of responses/affidavits received post 23.02.2022 which finally shows compliance and we appreciate the effort put in by the counsels for the State to make sure that the States comply.

STATUS OF VACANCIES OF PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS IN THE STATE COMMISSION AND DISTRICT COMMISSION OF STATES/UTS. (ANNXURE-B)

9. Insofar as Annexure-B is concerned, it shows the Status of vacancies of President and Members in the State Commission and District Commissions of States/UTs. Learned Amicus Curiae points out that a lag is occurring on account of the following reasons:

    (a) Lack of suitable candidates in pursuance to advertisements.

    (b) In some of the smaller States, there is absence of qualified persons as per norms which may require relaxation by the Central Government. It is informed that some States have addressed communication in this behalf and the others which wish to do so may also do so likewise.

    (c) The pay and allowances is an issue which is creating an impediment in some of the persons accepting the assignment but then that is an issue pending before another Bench and can be flagged before that Bench.

10. In some smaller States, the counsels submit that the cases are so limited that there is really no need to fill the vacancies created both for judicial and administrative staff. That will be an issue to be pointed out to the learned Amicus Curiae who will verify whether it is actually so.

STATUS OF STAFF VACANCIES (ANNEXURE-C)

11. Learned Amicus Curiae has given a chart analyzing the position aforesaid and categorizing them under three heads, namely:

    (a) States/UTs. seeking exemption from creation of posts of Registrar/Joint Registrar due to low pendency of cases:

    In this behalf the three States may furnish the data to the learned Amicus curiae to analyze the genuineness of the cause keeping in mind the pendency of the cases and the staff requirement.

    (b) State/UTs. where posts are yet to be sanctioned:

    We do not appreciate the non sanction of posts unless the exemption is permitted. Thus, the process of sanctioning must be completed within one month from today, failing which the nominated Secretary dealing with the matter would remain personally present in Court.

    We may clarify that such of the States which seek an exemption, those posts would be excluded unless the learned Amicus Curiae opines back to them that posts are required and if it is so opined, the needful would have to be done. The time in those cases would start from the date of communication by the learned Amicus Curiae.

    (c) States/UTs. that have not given any information about staffing and/or appointment of Registrars:

    16 States have not furnished information. Fifteen days’ time is given to furnish information, failing which the concerned Secretary would remain present.

    Learned Amicus Curiae rightly points out that if exemptions are being sought, then information must be forthcoming of the number of cases pending, the standard staffing pattern, the staffing required for those number of cases and the posts for which exemption is sought in order to enable the learned Amicus Curiae to take an obje

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top