SHILLONG, SEPT 27: The BJP Meghalaya state has sought amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to facilitate appointment of retired district judges/district council judges/advocates as presiding officers of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) in Meghalaya.
In a letter to Union Minister of State for Law and Justice PP Choudhury recently, BJP state convenor of the department of law and legal affairs Tilok Dasgupta said, “We fervently impress upon you to consider the contention raised to initiate appropriate measures by suitably amending the relevant provision of the Act/Rule for ensuring regular functioning of the district forum in every district of the state in the interest of the aggrieved consumers at large.”
He said the amendment of Section 10 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Rule will facilitate appointment of retired District Judges or District Council Judges and experienced Advocates as Presiding Officers of the DCDRFs in the state for expeditious disposal of cases instead of incumbent District Judges and Deputy Commissioners.
Stating that such forum was aimed at ensuring efficacious and expeditious disposal of consumer matters on a first track basis, Gupta however said the ground reality in Meghalaya notwithstanding the best of efforts of all concerned has not been very encouraging.
He said that out of eleven districts in State, eight districts have Consumer Redressal Forum and in 6 out of 8 districts, it is the Deputy Commissioners who acts as the presiding officer of such Forum.
Without questioning the wisdom, integrity and neutrality of Deputy Commissioners discharging their duties as such presiding officers of the Forum, a hurdle at times does arise as to the legality/neutrality of the Deputy Commissioners for being the Presiding officers of the Forum when they are Head of Supply Department in the District, he said.
He said, the sense of justice and fair play demands that the Deputy Commissioners ought not to sit as an arbitrator when there is litigation against the Department of Supply pertaining to PDS, Kerosene or irregular distribution in LPG cylinders detrimental to the interest of consumers.
According to him, the Deputy Commissioners in such cases are to be arrayed as one of the respondents or at least a Proforma Respondents but never a Judge or an arbitrator.
He further stated the position of East Khasi Hills District West Garo Hills is worse where the District & Session Judge(s) are made to function as the President of District Consumer Forum the magnitude of whose responsibilities as District & Session Judge is colossus.
Such an arrangement not only belies rationality and pragmatism but also acts as a hindrance to expeditious disposal of cases by the parent Court and the Forum as well. The District Forum meets two days a week in East Khasi Hills.
Gupta also added that in a welfare state, the responsibility is cast upon the authority to ensure fair distribution of consumer items under PDS which also brings within its ambit regular supply of LPG and other domestic fuel as well and in the event of any irregularity committed by any dealer with regard to the distribution of any such consumer items, the aggrieved has to agitate the same before the concerned district forum which is incidentally presided over by the said Deputy Commissioner who is no less answerable for the alleged irregularity.
But under the existing practice, such officers instead of getting arrayed as a Respondent in the dispute or litigation, by the tryst of circumstances, acts as an arbitrator in his case which is totally impermissible under the law, he added.
Going by the accepted practice, he said that a person cannot be a judge in his own case then how can a Deputy Commissioner who ought to be arrayed as a Respondent in a consumer dispute be permitted to act as the arbitrator?
It would be no exaggeration to state that neutrality is the very essence of law and justice is required to be seen to have been done. Hence, in the interest of equity and justice, the practice of Deputy Commissioners acting in their ex-officio capacity as the Presiding Officers of the consumer forum deserves to be discouraged upholding the spirit of law.
He said it would not be out of context to mention that when a retired Judge of a High Court can be appointed as the President of the State Forum, then can there be any legal or logical bar in appointing a retired District Judge or a retired District Council Judge or for that matter an experienced Advocate as the Presiding Officer of the District Forum?
“In fact, such progressive measures would not only invigorate the functioning of the forum at the base- level, but also throw up a demanding opportunity to the lawyers as well,” he added.
By Our Reporter
+ There are no comments
Add yours