( 1 ) IN these applications various provisions of the Consumer protection Act have been questioned. In writ Petition Nos. 10935, 10939 and 11109 of 2001, the petitioners had questioned the validity of Sections 2 (d), (e), (f), (g), sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24 (b) and 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the said Act ) whereas in the other writ petitions the vires of Section 27 of the said Act is in question.

( 2 ) THE main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners led by Sri S Ramchandra rao principally are: (I) Having regard to the composition of the different Commissions, which are manned by, lay persons and as the decisions of the majority of the members who may be laymen would prevail over the decisions of a judicial member/chairman, the provisions of the said Act must be held to be violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India. (II) As an appeal is provided to the supreme Court from an order passed by the National Commission, by necessary implication, the power of judicial review of this Court has been taken away. (III) Since a new offence has been created by reason of Section 21 of the said act, without providing for the safeguards as provided for under order 21, Rule 37 of the Code of civil Procedure, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. (IV) The constitution of Commission consisting of a retired person and/or retired judicial officer or Judge and untrained persons is violative of the constitutional scheme as regard judicial independence.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted: (1) The concept of judicial review can not be applied in vacuum inasmuch as in terms of Section 3 of the said act, the said Act is not in derogation of any other Act and thus does not take away any right of the parties; (2) While considering the constitutionality or otherwise of a statute, the Court cannot go into the question of legislative policy or wisdom. (3) Section 27 of the Act was enacted with a view to effectuate compliance of an order passed by the authorities thereunder and thus the same cannot be said to be violative of or unconstitutional, particularly, having regard to the fact that the original order is subject to appeal.

( 4 ) BY reason of the provisions of the said Act merely an additional forum has been created. 4. The said Act was enacted to provide for better promotion of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose to make provisions for the establishment of consumer Courts. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act provides that the same was enacted in order to promote and protect the rights of the consumers such as: (A) the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; (B) the right to be informed about the quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; (C) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices; (D) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums; (E) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (F) right to consumer education.

( 5 ) BY reason of the provisions of the said Act, forums have been created at the district, State and National level. Sections 10, 16 and 20 of the said Act provide for the composition of the District Forum, State commission and National Commission. Sections 15, 19 and 23 provides for the hierarchy of appeals. By reason of subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 the district forum shall have the same powers as are vested in the civil Courts for the purposes mentioned therein. Sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 14 mandate that the proceedings shall be conducted by the president of the District Forum and atleast one member