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

2020 Supreme(Del) 593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Binty - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3187 of 2020
Decided On : 19-05-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Mr. Shaurya Jain and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advocates for, for the UOI; Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, ASC, for the GNCTD; Ms. Nisha Sharma, Advocate for RBI. Mr. Rajesh Manchanda with Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advocates, for the Respondent No. 12

The court emphasized the separation of powers and the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in legislative and executive matters.

Headnote:

Consumer Welfare Fund - Public Interest Litigation - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Central Excise Act, 1944, CGST Act, 2017 - The court dismissed the petition seeking to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into rules, transfer unclaimed amounts to the fund, and disburse funds to hospitals, emphasizing the separation of powers and the court's inability to legislate or direct executive actions. The court also highlighted the existing legal framework for Consumer Welfare Funds and the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into rules, transfer unclaimed amounts to the fund, and disburse funds to hospitals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petition untenable in law, emphasizing the separation of powers and the court's inability to legislate or direct executive actions.

Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the petition, separation of powers, and the petitioner's claims regarding unclaimed amounts and their utilization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the separation of powers and the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in legislative and executive matters. It also highlighted the existing legal framework for Consumer Welfare Funds and the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as bereft of merit.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral) - CM APPL. 11076/2020

Allowed, subject to just exception.

W.P.(C) 3187/2020

1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

3. It is pertinent to mention that present public interest litigation has been filed against as many as eighty respondents primarily seeking to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into the Consumer Welfare Fund Rules, 2010 and for transfer of the unclaimed or unpaid amounts of unidentifiable consumers lying with respondents to Consumer Welfare Fund or a Suspense Account as well as for refund of the same and to disburse Rs. 5 crores out of the said amount to senior resident doctors of Safdarjung Hospital and to donate an additional sum of Rs. 5 crores to Sardarjung Hospital to fight the coronavirus. The prayer clause reads as under:-

    ''In the abovementioned facts and circumstance this Hon ? ble Court may graciously pleased to:--

    (a) Issue writ of mandamus directing the appropriate government to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into the Consumer Welfare Rules, 2010;

    (b) Issue writ of prohibition and certiorari directing appropriate government to transfer unclaimed or unpaid unidentifiable consumer amount, lying with Banks, RD accounts, PPF, NPPA, Postal Services, Life Insurance, direct & indirect tax authorities, SEBI, DG Civil Aviation and other government entities and also any type of consumer unclaimed or unpaid amount mentioned in above drawn chart or illegally diverted into other account(s) into CWF or to a Suspense Account under CPA, 1986 or under CPA, 2019 in terms of CWF, Bill 2010;

    (c) Issue writ of certiorari directing appropriate government to refund unclaimed and unpaid unidentifiable consumers amount to them in terms of judgment rendered by the constitutional bench of the Hon ? ble Supreme Court of India in Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 read with the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010;

    (d) Issue writ of certiorari directing the central government to disburse Rs.5 Cr. or more to the Senior Resident doctors Safdarjung Hospital from the unclaimed amount belongs to innumerable and unidentifiable consumers throughout India;

    (e) Issue writ of prohibition directing the appropriate government to credit all public money into the account of Consumer Welfare Fund which is not meant for Consolidated Fund of India;

    (f) Issue writ of mandamus directing the appropriate government to enact Consumer Welfare Fund Act, 2010 in terms of clause (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 (Powers and functions of Central Authority to advise the Ministries and Departments of the Central and State Governments on consumer welfare measures) of the CPA, 2019;

    (g) Issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to file their responses with regard to total unclaimed amount of consumers amount which is lying with them till today in the absence of any statute;

    (h) Issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to file a detailed sheet as to how much consumers unclaimed amount, received under Section 12 (1) or 17 (1) or 21(i)(a) or CPA, 1986; or fine under section 14(1) (hb) of the CPA, 1986; or cost of adjournment, has been directed to deposit in CWF established under section 12(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of Rule 10A of the Consumer Welfare Rules, 1987;

    (i) Issue writ of probation directing the appropriate government not to transfer consumers unclaimed amount (in trillions) of consumers in any other account till the proper statute is not enacted;

    (j) Issue writ of certiorari to deposit consumers unclaimed amount (in trillions) in Consumer Welfare Fund or Suspense account till the proper statute is not enacted;

    (k) Issue a writ of mandamus directing R-13 to allow the present Central Consumer Protection Council through its members to donate on behalf of the consumers the said sum of Rs.5 crores (Right Five Crores on

    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