The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition filed for filing up of the vacancies in the State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh held that in a welfare state, it is expected that the government should take prompt action in making appointments for the Redressal of the grievances of the consumers and directed the Chandigarh administration to file a status report on steps being taken for filling up existing and future vacancies in the State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the UT.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking direction to the respondents for filling up the vacancies of Members of the State/District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, in terms of the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others”.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, there is a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of two Benches i.e. Principal Bench and Additional Bench and apart from this, there are two District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission called District Commission-I and District Commission-II and presently there are certain vacancies in the State Commission and few vacancies are likely to occur in both State Commission as well as the District Commission. It was further contended that despite various communications the authorities have failed to initiate any action for filling up the vacancies which have already arisen or which are due to arise.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the process has been initiated for filling up the vacancies in view of the said judgment and further sought two weeks to get necessary instructions and to submit a reply to the instant Writ Petition.
Observations of the Court:
The court in order to ensure that the Consumer Disputes Redressal mechanism does not come to a standstill extended the tenure of two non-judicial members as an intermin measure and further issued directions to the respondents to submit the Status Report regarding the steps being taken/initiated for filling up the already accrued vacancies and also the vacancies likely to arise in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh as well as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, by way of an affidavit of Secretary, Department of Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology, Chandigarh Administration.
The decision of the Court:
The court issued directions to the respondents and listed the matter for further consideration.
Case Title: Tricity Consumer Court Bar Association vs. U.T. Chandigarh and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Case No.: CWP-20554-2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Mr. I.P Singh and Mr. Sandeep Khunger
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abhinav Sood and Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
