http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/01/1993

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 1403            1993 SCR  (1)  10  JT 1993 (1)    67        1993 SCALE  (1)17

ACT: Consumer Protection Act 1986: Section  9--Setting up of District  Fora--Non-implementation by  some States/Union Territories--Stop-gap  arrangement  of District  Judges  functioning  as  Presidents  of   District Fora--Termination of--Statutory requirement of  constituting District  Forum  for each district or for 2 or  3  districts clubbed  together--Directions  to  State   Governments/Union Territories--Issued.

HEADNOTE: The  Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 envisaged  a  three-tier fora comprising the District Forum, the State Commission and the  National  Commission  for redressal  of  grievances  of consumers.   The  Petitioner-Society preferred  the  present Writ  Petitions complaining that the implementation  of  the provisions  was sluggish since the machinery for  redressing the grievances of poor consumers at the base-level viz.  the District  Forum  had not been set up in  all  the  districts except a few. As  a stop-gap arrangement, this Court on  17.1.90  directed that  every district should have a District Forum  with  the District Judge as its President This Court further  directed the State Governments concerned to appoint two more  members in   every   District  Forum.   It  also   scrutinised   the information  received from various States/Union  Territories and considered the difficulties faced by them in the  matter of setting up District Forum in each district Thereafter,  disposing  of  the  Writ  Petitions  by  giving directions to States/Union Territories, this Court HELD  : 1. Under Section 9 of the Consumer  Protection  Act, 1986  It  is the responsibility of the State  Government  to set-up  a  District  Forum  with  the  approval  of  Central Government  The  State Government cannot absolve  Itself  of this  responsibility  by virtually perpetuating the  ad  hoc arrangement  The  High  Courts  have  not  withdrawn   their personnel only 11 because  they  have respected this Court’s request  made  to them.  But there is a limit beyond which an ad hoc  stop-gap arrangement  cannot  last In the circumstances  it  Is  most appropriate to indicate to the State Governments that the ad

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

hoc arrangement evolved by this Court will terminate  within a fixed time-frame. [17EF] 2.   It  is directed that wherever a sitting District  Judge is functioning as the President of a District Forum, if  the workload  exceeds  the  minimum monthly load  of  150  cases consistently  for  a six month period, the High  Court  will convey  the  same to the  State  Government/Union  Territory Administration which will within a period of six months from the  date of receipt of the communication appoint a  regular independent District Forum as envisaged by section 9 of  the Act.   After the expiry of the said six months  period,  the High  Court  will be free to terminate the ad  hoc  stop-gap arrangement  of loaning the services of a  sitting  District Judge  work  as the President of the  District  Forum  under intimation   to   the   State   Government/Union   Territory Administration and it will then be the responsibility of the latter  to make provision for carrying out the  purposes  of the Act. [18C-D] 3.   It  is  further directed that in  districts  where  the workload  does not exceed the minimum fixed by this  Court’s order  dated  August  5, 1991, the ad  hoc  arrangement  may continue  for  one  year  during  which  period  the   State Government/Union Territory Administration Will take steps to constitute  an independent District Forum for each  district or if the Central Government permits one such forum for 2 or 3  districts  clubbed  together.  After the  expiry  of  the period  of one year, the concerned High Courts will be  free to terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement of loaning  the services of sitting District Judges to work as President  of the   District   Forum  in  which  case  it  will   be   the responsibility  of  the  State  Government/Union   Territory Administration  to  make  provision  for  carrying  out  the purposes of the Act. [18E,G] 4.   A  copy  of  this  order will  be  sent  to  the  Chief Secretary   of   each   State   Government/Union   Territory Administration   to  take  steps  to  meet   Its   statutory obligations under the Act within the above time-frame with a view to ensuring that the interest of the consumers is fully protected.  Needless to point out that more than  sufficient time  has  been  allowed  to  the  State   Governments/Union Territories to fulfil their statutory obliga- 12 tion  of  setting up a District Forum in every  district  as envisaged  by  section  9  of  the  Act  and  the  concerned Government will now be alive to its responsibility to do  so within the time extended hereby. [18H, 19AB]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1141 of 1988. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                             WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No. 742 of 1990. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Altaf  Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General,  R.N.  Sachthey, Dr.  N.M  Ghatate, P.S. Poti, A.S. Nambiar,  Rajeev  Dhawan, (H.D.  Shourie-in-person), Anip Sachthey, Chava  Badri  Nath Babu,  Rashmi Dhirwal, B.R. Jad, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms.  Monika Mohil, Monika Lal, Sunil Dogra, J.H. Parekh, N.K. Sahu, P.H. Parekh,  Sunita  Mukherjee, Ms. H. Wahi,  V.K.S.  Choudhary, (Adv.   General),  K.B.  Mishra,  Vishwajit  Singh,  Vikrant Yadav, N. Singh, Ms. Sushma, B.K. Prasad, A.S. Bhasme,  K.R. Nambiar,  JR.   Das,  S.  Sinha and  Das,  V.  Balaji,  P.N.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Ramalingam,   Ms.  S.  Vasudevan,  P.K.  Manohar,   Ms.   A. Subhashini,  B. Parthasarathy, M. Veerappa, S.K.  Agnihotri, A.K. Panda, Pravir Choudhary, S.K. Nandy, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Indu  Malhotra,  Ashok Mathur, D.N.  Mukherjee,  S.H.  Wahi, Kailash  Vasudev,  Mr. G.K. Gansal, Ms.  Indra  Makwana,  K. Swami,  Gopal  Singh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Manoj  Swarup,  S. Kumar,  Ms. S. Janani, R.S. Suri, Aruneswar Gupta,  T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Gaopal Singh, Ms. Alpna  Kirpal, Dushyant  A.  Dave and V. Krishnamurthy  for  the  appearing parties. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by AHMADI,  J. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act of  1986) received  the assent of the President on December 24,  1986. This  legislation  was  enacted for the  protection  of  the interests  of the consumers and for that purpose to  provide for  the  establishment  of  Consumer  Councils  and   other authorities  for the settlement of consumers’  disputes  and matters connected therewith.  Section 1(3) thereof  provided that  it shall come into force on such date as  the  Central Government will provide by notification. 13 Since different dates could be appointed by different States and  for different provisions the provisions of the Act  did not come into force on a single date in the entire  country. The provisions contained in Chapters 1, II & IV were brought into  force by the Central Government w.e.f. April 15,  1987 and Chapter III from July 1, 1987.  The Consumer  Protection Rules,  1987 made under Section 30(1) of the Act  were  also brought  into force w.e.f. April 15, 1987.  For the sake  of brevity these two pieces of legislations shall hereafter  be referred to as ’the Act’ and ’the Rules’, respectively. The  object of the legislation, as the Preamble of  the  Act proclaims,  is  ’for better protection of the  interests  of consumers’.   During  the  last  few  years  preceding   the enactment there was in this country a marked awareness among the  consumers  of goods that they were  not  getting  their money’s  worth and were being exploited by both traders  and manufacturers  of  consumer goods.  The  need  for  consumer redressal   fora   was,   therefore,   increasingly    felt. Understandably, the therefore legislation was introduced and enacted with considerable enthusiasm and fanfare as a  path- breaking  benevolent  legislation intended  to  protect  the consumer from exploitation by unscrupulous manufacturers and traders  of consumer goods. A threetier fora comprising  the District  Forum,  the  State  Commission  and  the  National Commission came to be envisaged under the Act for  redressal of grievances of consumers.  The petitioner, common cause, a registered  society, espousing the cause of members  of  the public,  filed  this petition two years after the  Act  came into  force  complaining  that  the  implementation  of  the provisions  of the Act was sluggish, in that, the  machinery for  redressing the grievances of the poor consumers at  the base-leval i.e. the Districts Forums, had not been set up in all  the districts in the country except a few.   This  Writ Petition  was,  therefore,  moved under Article  32  of  the Constitution  for a direction to the appropriate  Government for  urgent  implementation of the provision of the  Act  in this  behalf.   Similar grievances are made  in  the  second petition also. Notices were issued to the Union, the State Governments  and the  Union  Territories  requiring  them  to  file  counters indicating the action taken for setting up a District  Forum in  each  district under the Act.  After the  counters  were filed by most of the States, except a few, this Court passed an  order on January 17, 1990 directing that every  district

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

shall  have a District Forum with the District Judge of  the district as its President.  This 14 was  a stop-gap arrangement.  A further direction was  given that the concerned Governments will appoint two more members to  constitute  the District Forum in every  district.   The President of the National Commission was requested to obtain first-hand  information  from every  State/U.T.  about  full compliance  of  the requirements of the statute.   The  High Courts   were   also   requested   to   accord   appropriate sanction/consent  for the functioning of District Judges  as Presidents  of  the District Fora.  Pursuant  to  the  above order  the President of the National Commission visited  the States  of  Rajasthan,  Maharashtra,  West  Bengal,  Orissa, Himachal  Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and filed  his  interim report  dated April 19, 1990 pointing out that in all  these States  the District Forum existed in only a  few  districts and  the Majority of the districts remained  unserviced.   A second detailed report covering the States of Gujarat,  Goa, Assam,  Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh (U.T.) and Delhi  (U.T.) was submitted on October 15, 1990 depicting more or less the same  situation.  Directions were issued from time  to  time for establishing a regular District Forum in every  district to the States/U.Ts. by this Court but suffice it to say that the  progress  was  rather slow.  Even  in  districts  where regular   District  Forum  existed  there  was   no   proper accommodation  and the staff was inadequate.  Directions  in this  regard had also to be given from time to  time.   Even though  specific directions were given from time to time  to each State/U.T. separately, the progress was both tardy  and sluggish.   No useful purpose will be served  by  traversing the  orders passed from time to time to exact obedience  for securing  the implementation of the  statutory  requirements from  the  defaulting State/U.T. Subsequently, by  an  order dated August 5, 1991 this Court directed that only in  those districts  where the minimum monthly load was less than  150 cases  consistently for a period of six months, it would  be open  to  the State U.T. to continue the  arrangement  of  a sitting  District  Judges as the President of  the  District Forum with the concurrence of the High Court concerned.   In other  districts where the work-load exceeded this  minimum, the Court ordered setting up of a regular District Forum for each such district.  In order to ensure that the interest of the consumers was protected each District Judge was asked to devote atleast three alternate days in a week.  Despite this order  the extent of compliance reported as on December  20, 1991  was  not  as significant as we  would  have  expected. Further time elapsed but the progress was slow and even  the information in that behalf was delayed.  Ultimately on March 23, 1992 we passed an order to the following effect : 15               "We would like to mention that if despite this               last   opportunity  given  to  the   concerned               authorities  to  furnish  the  information  as               sought   by   our  order  of   20.12.91,   the               information  is not forthcoming, we  would  be               constrained to pass appropriate orders without               waiting any further in the matter." The  above  facts  bring  out  in  brief  the   difficulties experienced by this Court in securing the implementation  of the  requirements of a benevolent statute meant  to  protect the consumers.  One wonders why this indifference! We  have  scrutinised  the  information  received  from  the various States/U.Ts. from time to time and the picture  that emerges  is that once the District Judges were  required  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

fill  the  gap,  no doubt temporarily,  most  of  the  State Governments  have shown total lack of sense of  urgency  for setting  up regular district-wise fora as envisaged  by  the Act.   Some  of the States like Gujarat,  Himachal  Pradesh, Punjab,  etc., have made practically no effort to carry  out the intendment of the Act.  In Gujarat and Himachal  Pradesh there  is a regular set up in a single district  only  while the  rest  of the districts are manned by  sitting  District Judges.  In Punjab all the districts are serviced by sitting District Judges.  In some other States like Andhra  Pradesh, Bihar,  Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu only  a few  districts  have regular set-ups while the  majority  of districts  are  manned  by sitting  District  Judges.   From certain  States the information received is incomplete.   To say  the least the emerging scenario is far  too  depressing betraying a total lack of willingness on the part of most of the States to seriously implement one of the most benevolent legislations.  It is such indifference which renders a  well meaning  legislation  intended to protect a  large  body  of consumers   from   exploitation  ineffective.    Many   such benevolent  legislations  have met similar fate  because  of such  indifference or influence wielded by vested  interests with   powers  that  be.   Notwithstanding  the   increasing awareness  amongst  the, consumers and  notwithstanding  the fact that consumer protection movement is gaining ground  in other countries, it is difficult to comprehend why the State Governments  have  been indifferent and, if we may  say  so, unconcerned about the need to establish regular fora in  all the  districts  with despatch to ensure  early  disposal  of consumer  complaints.  Considerable time, almost  over  five years, have now elapsed since the provisions of the Act were brought  into force and we should have expected the  regular forum in position in every district 16 by  now.   It is conceivable that  the  consumer  protection movement  is  gaining ground in other countries  because  of strong  consumer bodies having succeeded in  organising  the consumer:  such  powerful  bodies are far and  few  in  this country and they are unable to exert sufficient pressure  on the  powers that be as compared to the pressure  brought  by vested  interests because the consumers in this country  are not organised as one would like them to be.  Whatever may be the  reason which permits such indifference on the  part  of the  States, the fact remains that the States have shown  no sense of urgency in setting up the network for protection of the  consumers  at the district level.   Since  the  sitting District  Judges are already burdened with heavy dockets  of their own, even the lure for extra payment has not worked to ensure  early  disposal of the consumer complaints  as  they just do not have the time for it.  Even this Court’s anxiety to  see  that  consumer complaints do not pile  up  has  not activated   the   State  Governments  into   speedy   action even though they were made aware through their counsel  that most  of  the High Courts had reported that  their  District Judges  would not be able to spare three days in a  week  to deal  with  consumer complaints as their  regular  work  was likely  to  suffer.   Many  High  Courts  have  shown  their inability  to  spare their District Judges  for  this  work, notwithstanding  its importance, as the pressure of  regular work on the District Judges is great and they are finding it difficult to cope with the same and even urgent matters  get postponed,  thereby adversely affecting the litigants.   The High Courts have understandably shown their unwillingness to continue  with  this arrangement which  they  had  initially consented to on the ground that it was of a purely temporary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

and stop-gap nature.  They now complain, and in our  opinion rightly,  that considerable time has now elapsed since  this arrangement  was  worked out and they find it  difficult  to continue with it as it is causing prejudice to the  interest of litigants for whom the District Court are meant.  At  the same time we cannot be oblivious to the need to protect  the consumer  from  exploitation   that would  be  the  ultimate effect  if redressal fora are not available or are  suddenly withdrawn.   The  need for setting up regular  fora  in  all districts of every State cannot be over-emphasised. Section  9 of the Act envisages the setting up of  a  three- tier redressal mechanism, viz., (i) the District Forum  (ii) the State Commission and (iii) the National Commission.   So far  as  the State Commission and  National  Commission  are concerned they are in position and except for minor problems of  staffing  pattern, accommodation, etc, (which  they  can resolve 17 with  the concerned Governments) there are not many  serious issues  demanding  this Court’s interference.  It is  to  be hoped  that  such  minor irritants will be  removed  by  the concerned  Governments without loss of time.   However,  the real problem is concerning the setting up of the fora at the district  level.   Here the difficulty pointed  out  by  the concerned  Governments  is  regarding  the  availability  of accommodation.   But  then  there is nothing  on  record  to conclude  that  despite  serious  endeavours  made  by   the concerned  Governments they have not been able  to  overcome this  difficulty  in  the  last  over  five  years.   It  is difficult  to believe that a State Government would  not  be able  to  arrange for accommodation in a span of  over  five years  if it was seriously minded to do so.  The  impression which  has  surfaced  is  that  once  the  ad  hoc  stop-gap arrangement   was   made  by  this  Court,   the   concerned Governments did not view the problem seriously.  On  account of  inaction  on  their  part  the  ad  hoc  arrangement  in continuing  and, as pointed out by certain High  Courts,  to the  detriment  of the other of the  other  litigants  whose cases  are pending in the District Courts since long.   What then  is the way out?  We have to weigh the interest of  the consumers  on the one hand and the efficient functioning  of the  judiciary to deliver the goods to the  other  litigants whose  cases are pending since long on the other and find  a way  out which will not prejudice either.  In so  doing,  we must  keep in mind the fact that under Section 9 of the  Act it is the responsibility of the State Government to set-up a District Forum with the approval of the Central  Government. The   State  Government  cannot  absolve  itself   of   this responsibility   by  virtually  perpetuating  the   ad   hoc arrangement.   The  High  Courts have  not  withdrawn  their personnel  only  because they have  respected  this  Court’s request made to them.  But there is a limit beyond which  an ad   hoc   stop-gap  arrangement  cannot   last.    In   the circumstances it seems most appropriate to us to indicate to the State Governments that the ad hoc arrangement evolved by this Court will terminate within a fixed time-frame. The  High  Court of Gujarat has made a suggestion  that  the State Governments should be permitted to club 2/3  districts and  constitute  a  single  forum  where  the  work  is  not sufficient.  This Court was of the view that if the workload exceeds  150 cases in six months immediately  preceding  the cut-off  date a case for an independent District  Forum  was made out but if the workload was less than that, the ad  hoc arrangement  of  the  District  Judge  functioning  as   the President  of  a District Forum may continue  for  sometime.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Here the suggestion of the High Court of Gujarat for 18 clubbing  2/3  districts can be considered by the  State  in consultation with the Central Government under Section 9  of the Act.  Unfortunately, accurate figures of the pendency of consumer  cases have not been supplied to this Court by  all the States and on account of that handicap our order has  to be of a general nature. In the result we give the following directions:               (1)   Wherever  a  sitting District  Judge  is               functioning  as  the President of  a  District               Forum,  if  the workload exceeds  the  minimum               monthly  load of 150 cases consistently for  a               six  month period, the High Court will  convey               the   same   to  the   State   Government/U.T.               administration  which will within a period  of               six  months  from the date of receipt  of  the               communication  appoint a  regular  independent               District  Forum as envisaged by section  9  of               the  Act.   After the expiry of the  said  six               months period, the High Court will be free  to               terminate  the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement  of               loaning  the  services of a  sitting  District               Judge to work as the President of the District               forum   under   intimation   to   the    State               Government/U.T.  administration  and  it  will               then  be the responsibility of the  latter  to               make  provision for carrying out the  purposes               of the Act.               (2)   In districts where the workload does not               exceed the minimum   fixed  by  this   Court’s               order dated August 5, 1991, the ad hoc   arrangement               may  continue for one year from  today  during               which   period   the   State   Government/U.T.               administration  will take steps to  constitute               an   independent  District  Forum   for   each               district or if the Central Government  permits               one  such  forum  for  2/3  districts  clubbed               together.   After the expiry of the period  of               one year from today, the concerned High Courts               will be free to terminate the ad hoc  stop-gap               arrangement of loaning the services of sitting               District  Judges to work as President  of  the               District  Forum in which case it will  be  the               responsibility  of the State Government  /U.T.               administration to make provision for  carrying               out the purposes of the Act.               (3)   A copy of this order will be sent to the               Chief Secretary of each State  Government/U.T.               administration to take steps to meet with  its               statutory obligations under the Act within the               19               above time-frame with a view to ensuring  that               the   interest  of  the  consumers  is   fully               protected.   Needless to point out  that  more               than  sufficient time has been allowed to  the               State   Governments/U.Ts.  to  fulfill   their               statutory obligation of setting up a  District               Forum  in  every  district  as  envisaged   by               section  9  of  the  Act  and  the   concerned               Government   will   now  be   alive   to   its               responsibility  to  do  so  within  the   time               extended  hereby.   The  of  Registrar   shall               forward the copy in less than a weeks time" The  Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1988 shall stand disposed  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

according with costs which we quantify at Rs. 5000 per State Government/U.T.  The  other Writ Petition No.  742  of  1990 shall  also stand similarly disposed of with no order as  to costs. G.N.                              Petitions disposed of.