Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Start Appointment Process For Consumer Commissions 6 Months Before Vacancies Arise : Supreme Court To States

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

26 July 2022 12:40 PM GMT

    • Start Appointment Process For Consumer Commissions 6 Months Before Vacancies Arise : Supreme Court To States

    In connection with the filling up of vacancies in consumer commissions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, noting that the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the consumer protection rules 2020 require that the process of appointments shall be initiated by the state governments atleast six months before the vacancy arises, observed that this is a statutory rule which is required to be followed by all...

    In connection with the filling up of vacancies in consumer commissions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, noting that the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the consumer protection rules 2020 require that the process of appointments shall be initiated by the state governments atleast six months before the vacancy arises, observed that this is a statutory rule which is required to be followed by all the states, that it is putting all states to notice that they must follow this rule strictly by initiating the process six months in advance as it is known when a vacancy arises

    At the outset, Amicus Curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted before the bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh, "The national commission has three but now I understand it is being filled up."
    In response, Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh told the bench, "Three vacancies are available in the national commission. The search-cum-selection committee has given three names which have gone to the ACC. We are expecting it to be completed so far as the NCDRC is concerned in 3-4 weeks. Also, there are supposed to be vacancies next year, so we have requested the Supreme Court for them also."
    Justice Kaul remarked, "That is the whole issue- we are saying 'please start in advance'. Because it takes a couple of months. When a person demits office, there should be someone there the next day to take over."
    The bench then recorded in its order as follows- "The ASG points out that in so far as the NCDRC is concerned, there are three vacancies. Recommendations have been made for them and the matter is before the ACC. The result is expected in the next 3 to 4 weeks."
    As the Amicus took the bench through the status report on the position of vacancies of president and members in the state and district commissions, the bench recorded in its order, "There are many vacancies in the state of Bihar. The counsel for the state of Bihar states that the process is on and the interviews were held on 22.7.2022. Request is made for a period of about two months to complete the appointment process."
    The bench further recorded, "Chhattisgarh is one more state with a serious problem. The posts for which vacancies were advertised, appointments are not made because of some technical reasons. This is something we don't appreciate. All the aspects should be taken care of beforehand. There is no purpose in going through the whole process and then effectively nullifying the process. We are informed that a fresh advertisement has been issued. We grant two months period to complete the process."
    Coming to Delhi, the bench noted in its order as follows- "The vacancies in Delhi are not large, but Delhi is hardly a place where there should be any reason for vacancy. The counsel states the process would be completed within a month".
    As regards Himachal Pradesh, Justice Kaul orally asked why a smaller state must have 6 vacancies. The bench then recorded in its order that "It is stated that the vacancies that will be filled in within maximum two months".
    As regards Madhya Pradesh, the bench recorded, "There are a large number of vacancies in Madhya Pradesh. On our query, we are told some people did not qualify the examination. On our query as to what is the qualifying limit, there is no response by the counsel and the officer assisting him. There is no point in sending somebody who doesn't know what the matter is about.The Counsel states that like other states, two months time be given for completing the process of filling up of the vacancies".
    When it reached Nagaland, the bench recorded in its order as follows- "The Amicus points out that the provisions of rule 6(4) of the consumer protection rules 2020 require the process to begin six months earlier. We would like to say that steps ought to have been taken to fill the vacancy. This is a statutory rule which is required to be followed not only by Nagaland but all the states, and we are putting all states to notice by this order that they must follow this rule strictly of initiating the process six months in advance as it is known that when a vacancy arises".
    Noting that in Orissa, the vacancies are stated to be 38, the bench recorded that the "counsel states the process will be initiated and within two months the process will be completed". "We have again put the counsel to notice that the mandate of rule 6(4) should be followed", repeated the bench.
    As regards Rajasthan where there are 10 vacancies, the bench recorded that the same "will be filled in within two months time", adding that "due care will be taken to follow rule 6(4)".
    As regards Uttar Pradesh, the bench again recorded that " the counsel states that so far as the presidents of district commissions are concerned, the process has been completed and they are likely to be notified within a week. So far as vacancies for members are concerned, they have stated that the advertisement will be issued in compliance with rule 6(4) and within two months those vacancies will be filled".
    On Tuesday, Mr. Sankaranarayanan pointed out that there is a requirement in the rules for the President of a state commission to be a former judge of the High Court, that many states are finding it difficult to meet that requirement, that two states have in fact written to the central government for a relaxation of that norm.
    In this context, ASG Singh submitted, "In RERA, we have this provision where the presiding officer of one state may also act as the presiding officer of 2 states, in case of small states. In RERA, there was a provision and that was done. But here, there is no law. Instead of waiving this requirement, this can be done. If this court considers it appropriate, it can be directed. The union is willing to go down that route".
    In this context of some of the smaller states finding it difficult to meet the requirement for a retired judge of the High Court for heading the state commission, the bench then recorded in its order, "The ASJ submits that one possible solution may be to permit the head of the state commission for one state to also be the head of another state commission, so far as the smaller states are concerned. That aspect may be explored".
    Coming to staff vacancies, the bench recorded, "Amicus has drawn our attention to certain aspects. The note at the end shows that 11 states have been granted exemption from creation of post of registrar due to no pendency, and for five states the issue is still pending as additional information was sought from the states. In this regard, it is pointed out that for example, in Tamil Nadu, a complete exemption was sought for the whole state. Such a blanket exemption cannot be granted when there are varying levels of pendency of cases. Amicus has given an example of South Chennai where the number of cases pending is 9047, while in (...), the number of cases pending are 81. The exemption may be justified in the latter but certainly not in the first...The Amicus may advise accordingly wherever exemption is sought. The process will be completed accordingly, whether to grant or not to grant, within a period of two months, and where not granted, the relevant officer must be appointed".
    Moving on, the bench directed the notification of consumer mediation cells by all states as per the mandate of section 74 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
    Next, dealing with the provision of a portal for e-filing of cases, the bench recorded that "considerable progress" has been made so far as this aspect is concerned. The bench directed that as regards Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Puducherry etc and states where e-filing process has not been initiated, the same could also apply within two months.
    Finally, as regards the infrastructure of the consumer fora, the bench noted that the central nodal officer submits that the impediment which was found was that the sanctions are granted a couple of years ago, but to facilitate utilisation of funds, a one-time sanction is granted in respect of all pending funds. The bench directed that all states must act to make available funds.
    "We must note with some satisfaction the progress which has been made in the states, except few which have also ensured that action will be taken within a period of upto 2 months. Both the amicus and the nodal officer have done a commendable job to enforce the legislative intent of the Act. List after 2 months", added the bench.

    Case Title: 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 v. UOI & Ors.

    Tags
    Supreme CourtJustice SK KaulJustice MM Sundreshconsumer commission vacacniesConsumer CommissionConsumer Protection Rules 2020Consumers Protection Act 2019#National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
    Next Story
    X