Anshuman Singh, Acg. C.J.—Facts giving rise to this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie in a very narrow compass.

The petitioner-Society known as Sajag Upbhokta Shakti Sangthan, Jaipur is a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is alleged that the object of the Society is to protect the interest of the consumers and highlight their grievances for getting due relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) Under Section 9(b) of the Act the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to be established, which is known as State Commission, through Notification and a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also to be established in every district by the State Government under Section 9(a) of the Act. It has been averred that under the Act of 1986 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the State of Rajasthan was constituted on May 26,1988 vide Government Notification dated 26th May, 1988. The tenure of the Chairman and the Members of the Commission expired on 13th December, 1993 and thereafter no State Commission has been functioning according to the allegations made by the petitioner contained in the petition. It was also alleged that District Forum of Jaipur has been functioning with only one Member for last two years and the other Member has not been appointed as provided under Section 10 of the Act. It has also been alleged that large number of cases have complied up before the District Forum and the consumers are not getting relief speedily, which amounts to denial of justice and the purpose for which the Act was enacted is being frustrated.

2. The instant petition was filed on 24th January, 1994. In view of the subsequent facts as mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the grievance regarding non-functioning of District Forum, Jaipur and for establishment of another District Forum in Jaipur does not survive. It has been mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that two members, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Jain and Smt. Vijaya Lunia were appointed as Members vide Notification dated 26.11.90. However, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain expired on 18.6.93 and on his death one new member, namely, Mr. B.B. Sharma has been appointed and as such both the members are working in District, Forum, Jaipur-I. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that in order to cope up with heavy work load of cases in Jaipur, the State Government has established second Consumer Forum vide Notification dated 23.3.94 and as such two District Consumer Forums known as Jaipur-I and Jaipur-II are presently functioning and as such the prayer regarding issuance of any mandamus by this Court regarding Constitution of District Forum has become only academic and does not require any adjudication by this Court and in fact the State Government has complied with the provisions of the Act and has also taken care by establishing two Forums in order to dispose of the complaints of the consumers expeditiously.

3. As far the Constitution of the State Commission is concerned, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that after expiry of the earlier Commission, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma (retired) has been appointed as President of the State Commission vide Notification dated 21.9.94. Apart from Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, two other Members namely, Shri J.P. Mathur and Dr. Mrs. Feroza Bano have also been appointed as Members of the State Commission vide Notification dated 15.4.94. It has been averred in the reply that the term of one of the Members Mr. J.P. Mathur expired on 12.1.95.

4. From the facts stated above, it is abundantly clear that the State Commission has not been constituted fully after 12.1.95 and the present Commission is functioning with the President and one Member and the post of another Member of the Commission is lying vacant. There is no dispute that the post of ano