JUDGMENT
B.L. Yadav, A.C.J.
1. Social Action for Relief to the consumers, a voluntary association for raising Public causes, has filed the instant writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest litigation, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to establish a permanent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which obviously consists of three tier, as contemplated under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. In pursuance to the order dated 8.2.1995 passed by this Court, vide Memo No. 14 dated 10.2.1995, a report was called for from the President, District Forum, Ranchi, who has submitted a report dated 22.2.1995, addressed to the Joint Registrar of this Court. It has been indicated in that report that total number of cases filed upto 18.2.1995 were 1283, out of that upto 18.2.1995 only 243 cases could be disposed of, whereas 1040 cases were pending. Again it has been reported that since Ist March, 1994, to 18th February, 1995, 219 cases have been filed, out of that only 87 cases have been disposed of. In nut shell it appears that upto 21.2.1995, 1172 cases were pending.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that in case the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act read together, in that event there must be three tier forum (a) District Forum (b) State Commission and (c) National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission. In respect of District Forum there must be a President, who has been qualified to be a District Judge, or a person of eminence in the field of education, trade or commerce or a lady social worker. Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, rules have been framed by the State Government, named as Bihar Upbhokta Sanrakshan Niyamawali, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 3 of the Rules provides that there shall be a whole-time or part time basis President of the District Forum and in case there is a President on whole-time basis, in that event he would get usual pay of a District Judge and in case he has been appointed on part time basis for a limited time, he would get 150/- per day. But this rule does not appear to be valid as it goes against the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, prayed for some time to file a counter-affidavit, in spite of the fact that this case was filed on 31st August, 1994 and a copy of the writ application along with relevant annexures and affidavits was served on the learned Counsel for the respondents. About eight months elapsed since filing of the writ petition but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Thereafter the case was listed on 7.2.1995. Again it was listed on 23.2.1995 and 13.3.1995. Thereafter, on 22.3.1995, 29.3.1995, 7.4.1995 and again on 12.4.1995 this case was listed for admission and as such in this case by this time after about eight months of filing the counter-affidavit ought to have been filed. In view of the fact that a report from the District Forum, Ranchi, has already been received about the number of pendency of cases, there would be no justification for granting any further time. The averments made in the petition are almost admitted, no facts required to be controverted. The petition has to be disposed of on the basis of interpretation of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and the number of cases. Hence counter-affidavit would not serve any purpose.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, refuted the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and urged that the appointment of part-time President of the District Forum was sufficient compliance of the provisions contained under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules. It was further urged that there was no infirmity in the appointment of the President on part-time basis and the petitioner does not deserve any relief.
6. Having scrutinised the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the moot question for out determination is as to whether a part time (Anshkalik) President of the District Forum can be appointed and whether Rule 3 of the Rules providing for part time, ad hoc or Anshkalik President is valid. Both the questions can be decided together. Sections 9 and 10 of the Act have to be read together. While interpreting these Sections, it has to be noticed that the provisions are enacted for redressal of grievances of the consumers, Who are the worst hit persons in the Indian Society. These provisions are for the welfare of the society at large and for public good. There is a Latin Maxim “STATE PRO PUBLIC LATE INTER PRE TATUR” which connotes that statute made for public good must be liberally construed See Pollisetti Pullamma and Ors. v. Kalluri Kameshwammma and Ors. . The language of a section has to be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the legislation specially a declared purpose and policy See United States v. Witkovi 353 U.S. 194, United States v. Public Utilities, 345 U.S. 295. The object of the legislation in the instant case is welfare of the consumers. Sections 9 and 10, read together lead to only one construction that a person who has been or is a District Judge must be appointed President of District Forum who would continue till the age of 65 years. It was not contemplated by the legislature that ad hoc, temporary or Anshakalik President can be appointed. The State Govt. has framed rules in the exercise of delegated power. The power that has been delegated is to frame rules to carry out the object and purpose of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. As these Sections do not envisage appointment of an ad hoc or Anshkalik President, the State Govt. would be transgressing the legislative power in framing Rule 3 providing appointment of Anshkalik President. Rule 3, accordingly, is invalid inpart as it runs counter to the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
7. In the case of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors. , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that there would be three tier forum, viz, (i) the District Forum, (ii) the State Commission and (iii) the National Commission. In para 7 of the judgment, it has been held that in case there are more than 150 cases pending for six months period before the District Forum, in that event the High Court will convey the same to the State Government, 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 and would direct the State Government to appoint a fulfledged president of the District Forum.
8. Obviously, there are more than 150 cases pending for last more than six months. There is no escape from the conclusion, hence, the direction has to be issued to the State Government to appoint full-fledged President of the District Forum.
9. In view of the premises aforesaid, we allow this writ petition and direct the State Government to appoint a full-fledged President of the District Forum (not on part-time basis) within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This order shall be operative to all the Districts of the State, where the pendency of the cases is more than 150. There shall be no order as to cost.
10. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the authorities concerned of the respondent State within a week from today and also to issue a copy to the petitioner’s counsel as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State.