The Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Centre, a registered society formed "interest represented by it's General Secretary is the petitioner to protect consumer in the W.P. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mainly for direction to the State Government and the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, respondents 2 and 3 herein to fill up the existing vacancies of the President and members of various District Consumer Fora. Directions are also sought to correct the functioning of the State Commission under the orders of it's President who is declaring summer vacation for the State Commission every year contrary to Rules and has denied the room provided to the consumers by the State Government in the building constructed by it for the State Commission. There is also allegation that the President of the Commission is victimizing the petitioner for raising issues pertaining to the malfunctioning of the State Commission. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the State Government and the President of the State Commission who is none other than a retired Judge of this Court.

2. Even though the State Commission for Consumer Disputes Redressal may come within the meaning of "Tribunal" over which this Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not think the statute expects such a role for the High Court as the same is specifically vested in the National Commission under Section 24B of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The said provision gives express authority to the National Commission to call for periodical returns regarding institution, disposal and pendency of cases, to prescribe uniform procedure to be followed by State Commissions and generally to oversee the functioning of the State Commissions and District Fora to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are best served without in anyway interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has in fact sent Ext.P-3 petition to the National Commission which according to the petitioner remains unanswered. Apart from petitioner's allegations, even from the data furnished by the Secretary of the State Commission about pendency of cases, I feel the State Commission has to necessarily improve and achieve better disposal to reduce pendency. Parliament has conceived a separate Forum for redressal of consumer disputes not because civil courts do not have jurisdiction or authority under the existing laws, but for speedy redressal of consumers grievances through special bodies constituted with people of right knowledge and experience. Therefore, under no circumstance a consumer forum, whether it be at District, State or National level should allow accumulation of cases leading to delays defeating the very object oft he statute. In order to achieve this, supervisory jurisdiction is conferred on the National Commission over State Commissions and on State Commissions over District Fora under Section 24B of the Act. In the course of arguments, the petitioner pointed out that most of the disposals shown in the data furnished by the Secretary of the State Commission are in respect of short matters, dismissals for default etc. Even though this is denied by Counsel appearing for the third respondent, I am constrained to observe that lot of Writ Petitions are being filed in this Court seeking interim orders in matters pending before the State Commission which obviously show that there is delay in disposal of even interim applications by the State Commission. In any case this Court does not propose to go into the detailed functioning of the State Commission which is the jurisdiction solely vested in the National Commission under Section 24B of the Act. I am sure, the National Commission will not ignore the responsibility vested in it under Section 24B of the Act and will conduct enquiry and if nec