JUDGMENT
Anshuman Singh, Actg. C.J.
1. Facts giving rise to this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie in a very narrow compass.
2. The petitioner-Society known as Sajag Upbhokta Shakti Sangthan, Jaipur is a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is alleged that the object of the Society is to protect the interest of the consumers and highlight their grievances for getting due relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Under Section 9(b) of the Act the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to be established which is known as State Commission, through Notification and a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also to be established in every district by the State Government under Section 9(a) of the Act. It has been averred that under the Act of 1986 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the State of Rajasthan was constituted on May 26, 1988 vide Government notification dated 26th May, 1988. The tenure of the Chairman and the Members of the Commission expired on 13th December, 1993 and thereafter no State Commission has been functioning according to the allegations made by the petitioner contained in the petition. It was also alleged that District Forum of Jaipur has been functioning with only one member for last two years and the other member has not been appointed as provided under Section 10 of the Act. It has also been alleged that large number of cases have complied up before the District Forum and the consumers are not getting relief speedily, which amounts to denial of justice and the purpose for which the Act was enacted is being frustrated.
3. The instant petition was filed on 24th January, 1994. In view of the subsequent facts as mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the grievance regarding non- functioning of District Forum, Jaipur and for establishment of another District Forum in Jaipur does not survive. It has been mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that two members, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Jain and Smt. Vijaya Lunia were appointed as Members vide Notification dated 26.11.1990. However, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain expired on 18.6.1993 and on his death one new member, namely, Mr. B.B. Sharma has been appointed and as such both the members are working in District Forum, Jaipur-I. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that in order to cope up with heavy work- load of cases in Jaipur, the State Government has established second Consumer Forum vide Notification dated 23.3.1994 and as such two District Consumer Forums known as Jaipur-I and Jaipur-II are presently functioning and as such the prayer regarding issuance of any mandamus by his Court regarding constitution of District Forum has become only academic and does not require any adjudication by this Court and in fact the State Government has complied with the provisions of the Act and has also taken care by-establishing two Forums in order to dispose of the complaints of the consumers expeditiously.
4. As far the Constitution of the State Commission is concerned, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that after expiry of the earlier Commission, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma (retired) has been appointed as President of the State Commission vide Notification dated 21.9.1994. Apart from Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, two other members namely, Shri J.P. Mathur and Dr. Mrs. Foroza Bano have also been appointed as Members of the State Commission vide Notification dated 15.4.1994. It has been averred in the reply that the term of one of the Members Mr. J.P. Mathur expired on 12.1.1995.
5. From the facts stated above, it is abundantly clear that the State Commission has not been constituted fully after 12.1.1995 and the present Commission is functioning with the President and one Member and the post of another Member of the Commission is lying vacant. There is no dispute that the post of another Member fell vacant on 12.1.1995. More than a year has passed and the respondents have not been able to appoint the second Member of the State Commission. It is an established fact that the Act of 1986 was enacted by the Parliament for protection of the interest of consumers. It is also an established fact that the State Commission cannot function effectively without two Members and the President, inasmuch as occasions do arise and may arise when there is difference of opinion between the two Members constituting the Bench, then the matter has to be decided by the third Member. It has also been alleged that single Member is deciding the disputes, which is against the provisions of law and it is more reason that the appointment of second Member is absolutely essential in the interest or consumers and there is legal obligation on the part of the State Government to constitute the same under the Act, which the respondents have failed to perform. A statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondents on 3.11.1995 that the Selection Committee, which was constituted for selecting the second Member has already recommended the name of the person to be appointed as Member of the Commission, but the Government has not passed orders so far. The aforesaid statement was made on 3.11.1995. The Government Advocate was unable to make statement on 30.1.1996 when the case was listed as to whether second Member in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee has been appointed or not. From the facts stated above, it is abundantly clear that there has been latches on the part of the respondents in making appointment of second Member of the State Commission as the vacancy occurred more than a year back. In a welfare State, it is expected that the State Government will take prompt action in constituting the State Commission as well as the District Forums for redressal of the grievances of the consumers, but in the instant case the State of Rajasthan has not acted promptly in making appointment of second Member of the State Commission. After healing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, 1 am of the opinion that it is a fit case in the larger interest of the consumers that a mandamus may be issued to the State of Rajasthan to appoint the second Member of the State Commission.
6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part and the respondents are directed to appoint second Member of the state Commission latest by 1st March, 1996. Let a copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7. Parties shall bear their own costs.