This Article is From Dec 22, 2020

Petition In Top Court Alleges Consumer Courts In UP Not Functioning Well

The bench was hearing the contempt petition filed by NGO Bhartiya Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti through its group of lawyers

Advertisement
India News

The petitioner said the condition of consumer courts in Uttar Pradesh was poor

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has asked why a show cause contempt notice should not be issued against the Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government, Veena Kumari, for allegedly not complying with its earlier orders with respect to the working of the consumer courts in the state.

A three-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar and also comprising Justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, in its order on December 18, however, said that "the personal presence of the alleged contemnor is dispensed with."

The bench, which was hearing the contempt petition filed by NGO Bhartiya Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti through its group of lawyers, including Prashant Shukla, Shreya Mishra and others, also sought a response within four weeks from Veena Kumari and posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.

The plea sought directions to summon and punish all the alleged contemnors including Veena Kumari and others for committing wilful disobedience and gross contempt of several orders especially the Supreme Court's orders dated November 21, 2016, and September 11, 2018.

During the hearing, Mr Shukla had told the Supreme Court that the situation of "district fora is so pathetic that most of these are running with three to four staff", including peon and judicial members.

Advertisement

"At the very outset, the petitioner highlighted the dismal/woeful condition of the Consumer Fora functioning within the country. The deficiency of infrastructure in the adjudicatory fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has led to several directions of this Court in the course of the proceedings in the case," Mr Shukla said.

The plea the primary objective of the petitioner was to seek fulfilment and redressal of the mandate and objectives of the Consumer Protection Act.

Advertisement

It said Uttar Pradesh has defeated the purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act. The quality of presiding members, especially of non-judicial members at the state and district levels is poor, it added.

Advertisement