Supreme Court Directs States(Except Maharashtra) To Fill Up Consumer Commission Vacancies By End Of January 2022

The Supreme Court on December 1, 2021 issued a slew of directions in the suo-motu case to deal with the vacancies in Consumer Commissions across the country.The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh made the following observations with regards to the Vacancy Position, Infrastructure and Staff Vacancies.Vacancy PositionThe bench after considering the comprehensive status report in respect of compliance of its directions passed on August 11, 2021 qua the appointment of members, said that the scenario that emerged was that the States were categorized under two headings, i.e., the States that had partially filled the vacancies and the States that had not filed any vacancies. It further said that in the second category too, a large number of States were stated to be reaching the culmination of the process.It further in its order recorded the suggestion by the amicus that two months from the date of the order were enough for the States to fully comply, which included the ones which had partially complied but their vacancies had not been filled up. An exception with regards to the same was carved for the State of Maharashtra due to the pending SLP filed by the Centre and State challenging Bombay High Court's decision of quashing the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020."It is suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae that two months' time from today, i.e., by the end of January, 2022 should be enough for the States to fully comply, which include the ones which have partially complied but their vacancies have not been filled up, the exception being State of Maharashtra which will have to wait the decision in the special leave petition stated to be filed both by the Union of India and the State but not listed as yet. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that steps will be taken to mention the same for listing," bench in its order said.Considering the difficulties expressed qua the State of Tamil Nadu due to the changes that have been taken place in the judicial set up including of the Chief Justice, the court said, "It appears that the acting Chief Justice would have to nominate some Judge and the State Government would promptly approach the acting Chief Justice for the said purpose and we expect the nomination to be made on an urgent basis."For the State of Punjab the bench said that it appeared that two persons that were sought to be appointed were facing an interdict from the Court and said that it expected the High Court to take a call one way or the other on the same as early as possible.Noting that although the status report for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep showed that it had not even constituted the Selection Committee, but considering ASG Aman Lekhi's submission that the needful had been done on November 30, 2021 the bench said, "We expect the process to be completed within the stipulated time as aforesaid."Deprecating the developments for the State of Rajasthan that were brought to the notice of Amicus Curiae at the nth moment, the bench said, "We have put to learned counsel that if the time schedules directed by this Court are not adhered to we would take that the presence of the Chief Secretary would be required for enforcing our directions. The State to be careful in future."On the aspect of non-receipt of information from the State of Kerala, the bench said, "Learned counsel for the State sought to urge that they had sent the information and needful has been done but then in terms of our last order, we have categorically stated that after submission of the information electronically, it should be verified from the office of the learned Amici Curiae. The State of Kerala is no exception which will not follow the norm!"With regards to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the bench considered ASG Aman Lekhi's submission that a Committee headed by the Judge of Top Court was in seisin of the issue of selecting the persons to make recommendations.Legislative Impact Study Done In Hurry; Data Available Of CoVID Period; More Detailed Impact Study required On Continuous BasisWith regards to the aspect of Legislative Impact Study, the bench in its order noted that the same was done in a hurry and that the data available was of CoVID period and thereafter said that a more detailed study was required on a continued basis.Judicial InfrastructureTaking note of the fact that at the threshold a Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Arijit Pasayat was appointed to examine the issue of infrastructure in C.A. No. 2740/2007, titled as, State of U.P. & Ors. vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association, the bench directed the Registry to make available the final reports to the Amicus Curiae and also provided an alternative to obtain the same from Justice Arijit Pasayat.Physical And Financial Progress Of Building Should Be Furnished With Utilisation At Each Level Of 50:50; Assistance For Non Building Assets Should Come Only After Construction Of BuildingThe bench in its order also took note of the...

Supreme Court Directs States(Except Maharashtra) To Fill Up Consumer Commission Vacancies By End Of January 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags