IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WP (C) NO. OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:- Dignity Restoration & Grievance Settlement Association (DRGSA). Petitioner Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.. Respondents WRIT PETITION IN FORM OF PUBLIC INTEREST U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE EFFECTIVE STEPS TO FILL UP VACANT POSTS AND CREATE NEW POSTS IN DISTRICT FORUMS AND STATE COMMISSION AND TO ENFORCE THE GUIDELINES OF HON BLE APEX COURT FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF PENDING CASES IN DISTRICT FORUMS AND STATE COMMISSION. TO HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. The petitioner is a Non-Governmental organization registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 with Registrar of Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and works all over the country in providing fast and free redressal to consumers regarding their consumer complaints, educate consumers about their rights and duties and help in
mediation between consumers and departments. That it is submitted the writ petitioner has no personal interestor private/oblique motive in filing that instant petition. The present petition is not guided by self gain of petitioner or for gain of any other person / institution / body and that there is no motive other than public interest in filing the present petition. 2. That the source of knowledge of facts alleged in the present writ petition are from judgments passed by Hon ble Apex Court and various other courts and commissions across the country, online sources and letter sent under RTI Act and its reply received by the petitioner from Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT. 3. That the consumers as a class will be the primary beneficiaries of this PIL.It is a common knowledge that contesting the matters before courts are expensive and accordingly the delay in delivery of judgments impose more financial burden on the consumers and the present petition bring forth this important issue before this Hon ble Court. 4. That the object of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of
consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith. Adhering to that, sec. 9 of the Act mandates for the establishment of the consumer dispute redressal agency at all the three levels of administration. A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the "District Forum"(DCDRF) established by the State Government in each district of the State by notification; a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the "State Commission"(SCDRC) established by the State Government in the State by notification; a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) established by the Central Government by notification. Further it also provides that the State Government may, if it deems fit, establish more than one District Forum in a District. Accordingly, GNCT,Delhi is made as a party through the relevant secretaries in the present petition/pil. 5. The petitioner is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and a non- governmental organization with the Delhi Government to work All over India having more than 70 organizations as members
across the country and more than 150 individual members with the objective of providing fast and free redressal to consumers regarding their consumer complaints, to educate consumers about their rights and duties to do mediation between consumers and departments. The Petitioner society has organized more than 150 awareness programs in schools and amongst citizens in different part of country.the petitioner NGO makes all efforts to spread awareness in the field of consumers, Environment, waste management, road safety, digital literacy and E-waste management.the NGO is duly represented by Dr. Arun Kumar, Founder of the NGO and chairman of the Society and a social worker himself. That the petitioner is adequately equipped in assisting this Hon ble Court and have competence to espouse the cause raised in this petition and undertake to abide by the orders of this Hon ble Court. A copy of the Registration certificates is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1. 6. That describing the object of the Act, the Hon blesupreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority VS M.K.Gupta IR 1994 SC 78 held the importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly to the market economy. It
attracts to remove helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business. This Act aims to protect the economic interest of a consumer. It is a milestone in history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit. 7. That it has been more than 32 years since the Act came into existence, still the consumer complaints are lingering on in the State Commission and District Foras for years together, due to which the object of the Act has lost its sheen. The reasons for various delay/pendency in disposal of consumer complaints are many, such as vacant positions in District Foras, lack of infrastructure, untrained staff and not adhering to summary procedure by the State Commission and District Forasetc. 8. That firstly due to delay in disposal of complaints, the pendency of cases in the District Foras and State Commission have turned out to be enormous, which has not only dented the sacrosanct object of Consumer Protection Act but also defeated the intent of the legislature. 9. That the petitioner sought information under RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 12.07.2018 from Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs requesting them to
provide information about the number of cases pending in various DCDRF and SCDRC and information about vacancies in DCDRF and SCDRC. Copy of letter dated 12.07.2018 under RTI Act, 2005 sent by petitioner to Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2. 10. That therespondents replied vide their letter dated 24.07.2018by providing various details in two Annexures namely Annexure-I and Annexure-II dated 13.07.2018 (2 pages). The details provided in Annexure-II dated 13.07.2018 by the Respondents is as follows: S. No. Name of the CDRFS No. of cases pending at the beginning of the month No of cases filed No. of cases dispos ed 1 D.F (north) 431 14 7 438 No. of cases pending at the end of the month No of appeals pending at the beginning of the month No of appeals filed No. of appeals disposed No. of appeals pending at the end of the month 2. D.F(South-i) 1339 25 5 1359 3. D.F (West) 2290 26 20 2296 4. D.F(N.EAST) 805 10 9 806 5. D.F 3470 56 30 3496 (N WEST) 6. D.F(New 3031 28 73 2986 Delhi) 7. D.F(S. West) 2191 24 13 2202 8 D.F.(Central) 789 13 11 791 9 D.F.(East) 2651 28 6 2673
10 D.F.X(South 1454 28 18 1464 ii) 11 Total 18451 252 192 18511 12 State 5267 115 6 5376 1977 36 2 2011 commission 13 Grand total 23718 367 198 23887 1977 36 2 2011 The copy of reply dated 24.07.2018 of Respondents along with its Annexure-I and Annexure-II dated 13.07.2018 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. 11. That the reply dated 24.07.2018 discloses the pendency of complaints and appeals in the District forums and State commission of NCT, Delhi till the period of June 2018. Above referred table shows the pendency under different heads, i.e., in the beginning of June 2018 the total number of cases pending jointly in State Commission and District Forums are 23718 and by the end of the month they increased in number and there were 23887 cases pending. During this period State Commission and District Forums disposed off only 198 cases and as many as 367 fresh cases were filed which increased the number of pendency in State Commission and District Forums, ultimately rendering the object of the said Act obsolete.
12. That the Annexure-II dated 13.07.2018 given along with the reply dated 24.07.2018shows the cases pending in the District Forums in NCT Delhi which are as under: REPORT The yearly report regarding the institution and disposal of cases and appeals for the month of June, 2018 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum/State Commission set up under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is under:- S.No. CDRF Cases pending for year 0-5 Cases pending for year 5-10 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Cases pending for year more than 10 years 1 D.F. 413 22 3 (North) 2 D.F. 963 390 6 (South-1) 3 D.F. 1815 419 62 (West) 4 D.F. 768 38 00 (N.East) 5 D.F. (N. 1476 1688 332 West) 6 D.F. (New 1796 1156 34 Delhi) 7 D.F. (S. 1675 500 27 West) 8 D.F. 741 49 1 (Central) 9 D.F. 2417 255 1 (East) 10 D.F. (South II) 1018 385 61 State consumer disputes Redressal Commission 1 Registrar (State Commission) has reported that, there is a huge pendency of cases, approximately about 7000-8000 and therefore needs some more
time to submit the report in required proforma. It is respectfully submitted that it is crystal clear from this reply that the complaints and appeals have remained pending for years together. The total number of complaints pending from 0-5 years are 13082 and total number of complaints pending from 5-10 years are 4902, while Section 13 (3A) of the Act provides for 3 months as a period for deciding the complaints. Section. 13(3A) of C.P. Act is reproduced herein under for ready reference: Section 13: Procedure on admission of complaint. - (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,-.. (2) (3) (3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities: Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum: Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act. Provided also that in the event of a complaint being disposed of after the period so specified, the District Forum shall record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said complaint.
13. That it is a huge blow on the object of the Act since complaints and appeals are piling up at the State Commission and District Forums. The Hon ble Apex Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others AIR 2000 SC 3138 has observed: the consumer forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for years.it would defeat the object of the Act, if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at the district, state or national levels steps in this direction re required to be taken in the right earnest. 14. That secondly the vacant position in the District Forums are also one of the causes for the pending litigations in consumer forums. Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act explains the composition of District Forums. Section 10(1A) describe the selection process of the members that the members will be appointed by the recommendation of selection committee consisting of the President of state commission, Secretary Law Department and secretary of department of consumer affairs. The authority has been given to Respondents even to constitute more than one District Forum in each District, however, in reality, the respondents have not paid attention to fill up the vacancies or to constitute more than one District Forum wherever the filing of complaints are more. The Respondents have failed to act as per the
change in circumstances and awareness of the consumer, which has resulted in poor disposal of cases affecting the functioning of Consumer Foras. 15. That the reply dated 24.07.2018discloses that in three out of ten district forums situated in NCT Delhi, the position of District Fora members have remained vacant, which is a vital issue for consideration. 16. That thirdly lack of infrastructure is the big impediment for quick and effective disposal of the complaints in the District Foras. That Hon ble Justice MR. Arjit Pasayat who presided over the committee which was constituted on 14 January 2016 by the order of Hon ble Supreme Court while deciding in the matter of State of U.P and Others V. All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association, Civil Appeal No. 2740 of 2007 had observed the deficiency of infrastructure in adjudicatory authority and examined as: The Committee, during its visits to states, has found that there are no proper court-rooms with lights and fans, chairs and tables. The condition of Chambers of the Presiding Members is pathetic. They do not have adequate or trained staff. They do not have stenographers for taking dictations. At some Consumer Fora, there are no peons to retrieve the files from the Record Room. The Record-Rooms are, also, either too small and have no almirah, shelves or compactors to keep the files. The files are kept in open and get misplaced or eaten by termites. The Central Government provides funds for construction of the new buildings, carrying out additions/alterations/renovations of existing buildings and grant for acquiring non-building assets such as
furniture s, office equipments etc. The State Governments have to provide the land for construction of new buildings for the Consumer Fora. The Committee has noted that the State Governments have not been quick enough to allot land for construction of Consumer Fora in their respective States. The committee describes the unfortunate state of infrastructure in state commissions and district fora. It could also be noted that the State governments who are duty bound by the Act to provide the funds have failed to do so, which has resulted in this. 17. That fourthly the Respondents have not devised any method for training of the non judicial members or any conference held by the State or National commission to train the non judicial members with the working and implementation of the provisions of the said law. As non judicial members take time to grasp the provisions or to be in touch with the latest judgments, it results in piling of consumer complaints in District Fora. Educating non judicial members is also crucial for the effective and smooth working of the District Foras. 18. That Hon ble SC in State of U.P and Ors Vs. All U.P Consumer Protection Bar Association, Civil Appeal No. 2740 of 2007 dated November 21, 2016. Observed in Para no. 3
The quality of presiding members, especially of nonjudicial members at the state and district levels is poor. One of the reasons is that the remuneration which is being paid to non-judicial members of consumer fora varies from state to state and is too meager to attract qualified talent. Most of the nonjudicial members are not even capable of writing or dictating small orders. At certain places non-judicial members act in unison against the presiding officer, while passing orders contrary to law, damaging the reputation of the adjudicating body. Presidents, as a result, prefer a situation where such non-judicial members absent themselves from work if only so that judicial work can be carried out by the presiding judge impartially and objectively. Many non-judicial members do not maintain punctuality and others attend to work sporadically once or twice a week. The Committee has observed that that the problem lies in (i) absence of proper remuneration; (ii) appointment of former judicial officers who lack motivation and zeal; (iii) appointment of practicing lawyers as presiding officers of district fora; and (iv) political and bureaucratic interference in appointments. Many of the non-judicial members attend to the place of work only to sign orders which have been drafted by the presiding officer. The observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned matter has not been complied with till date. 19. That fifthly District Foras are not following the summary procedure strictly for the quick disposal of complaints. District Fora s and State Commission for all purposes runs by the procedural attributes governed by the CPC which had not only caused the unnecessary delay in the
disposal of consumer complaints but also have discouraged many unsatisfied consumers from filing their complaints. 20. That in the case of Bijoy Sinha Roy (D) By LR Versus Biswanath Das & Ors. C. NO. 4761 in para no.16 while talking about the soul of the Consumer Protection Act observed: it is necessary to refer to another important aspect relating to administration of justice by the Consumer Fora. A person coming to a consumer Court with a grievance of deficiency in service needs immediate relief. The very object of setting up Consumer Fora was to provide speedy remedy to a 10 consumer. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) was brought about in the background of worldwide movement for consumer protection. Framework of the Act is based on Resolution dated 9th April, 1985 of the General Assembly of the UN to which India was a signatory. The Act provided for protection of interests of consumers in the form of quick and speedy redressal of grievances. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Thus, the Act provides for additional remedies. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers. The award of damages is aimed at bringing about qualitative change in the attitude of service provider.
21. That the observation by the Hon ble court reflects the intention of the legislature and the purpose of the Act. The Act enables the effective mechanism for the redressal of consumer complaints, and gives a remedy for infringement of their rights. But since the inception of the Act working of State Commissions and District Fora have become more of a procedural institutions than settlement forums. It is quiet obvious that any redressal institution needs proper procedure to function but it should also be kept in mind that it should also be convenient, effective and fast so that the benefit of such wonderful law is served to the maximum citizens of this country. 22. That in State of Punjab And Another vs Shamlal Murari & Anr., the Hon ble Supreme Court observed Indian Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration or justice., which clearly elucidates the object of procedural law. Nowhere in the Act, it has been prescribed that the State Commission and District Foras should work in accordance with the civil courts and should observe the same procedures.
23. That through this petition the petitioner wants to draw Hon ble courts attention to the effective solution to upheld the objective of this welfare act of 1986. The petitioner suggests following: That the vacant positions of Judicial members or non judicial member or the staff of the District foras should be filled forthwith. Also rightly observed by Hon ble Justice Mr. Arjit Pasayat who presided over the committee which was constituted on 14 January 2016 by the order of Hon ble Supreme Court while deciding in the matter of State of U.P and Others V. All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association Civil APPEAL NO. 2740 OF 2007: It has, also, come to the notice of the Committee that the State Governments responsible for timely filling up of the vacancies of the Presidents and Members in the State Commissions and District Fora of the states, have failed to keep the time limit. The Committee has come across instances where the State Governments have taken upto 7/10 months to approve the recommendations of the Selection Committee. That the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods and services and compensation by district forums as per the provision of section 11 of the Act does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs and where the value of goods,
services and compensation exceeds twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore state commissions shall have jurisdiction as provided by section 17 of the act, resultant of which State Commissions which are also an appellant authority over District Foras are burdened with consumer complaints along with the appeals. The committee which was constituted in State of UP V. All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association Civil Appeal No. 2740 of 2007 Presided Over by Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat has noted in the para no. 15of the said judgment that the consumer protection bill 2015 the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district for is to be enhanced to rupees one crore. The proposed expansion of pecuniary limits require the strengthening of the quality of adjudication in the District Fora. That summary procedure should strictly be followed as Hon ble Supreme Court observed in Charan Singh V. Healing Touch Hospital and Others AIR 2000 SC 3138: the consumer forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the act, if summary trails are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at
the district, state or national levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right earnest. That as beneficiary legislation is trapped in the complexities and arrogance of procedural laws,the complaint in the State Commission and District Foras are now become the neverending civil litigation which no consumer wants to get entangled in. The District Foras and state commission should adopt a simpler procedure whereby even a lay man can come and file his or her grievance with less disposal time. The time consumed fulfilling the technicalities of serving notices and rejoinders and other procedures result in cases lingering on in State Commission and District Foras. That state governments should take up the responsibilities for appointing ad-hoc judicial officers and members as well as the staff for resolving the consumer disputes pending in the consumer foras well as appointing the vacant position of members in the consumer foras. As section 9 of the act clearly suggests that state government can establish more than one District Forums in a district for consumer redressal.
That alternative dispute resolution should also be introduced at the pre litigation stage so that consumer complaints can be easily disposed off at the blazing speed. As some of the disputes can be resolved easily as parties to the dispute are willing to make settlements. That for the effective and quick disposal of consumer complaints the committees should be constituted which can analyze the nature of dispute, determine pecuniary limits of the complaint and try to resolve the dispute by way of conciliation which can save enough time and resources of the consumer foras. 24. That this Hon ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under article 226 of constitution of India. 25. That since the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory and constitutional obligations the petitioners does not have any other alternative and equally efficacious remedy and is constrained to file the instant writ petition in nature of a PIL on the following amongst other. 26. That the petitioners have not filed any other PIL related to the same issue before any other high court or Hon ble
Supreme Court of India. This is the only PIL filed by the petitioner seeking the remedy. GROUNDS: A. BECAUSE present writ petition is pro bono public in which the petitioner has no personal interest in the matter or reliefs sought herein. B. BECAUSE Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial litigation which needs to be implemented in an effective manner so that the object of the act is fulfilled. C. BECAUSE speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied on any ground, as duty is imposed by the Constitution on the state to be the guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens. D. BECAUSE in the era of globalization and net banking where most of the business are done online where consumers cannot interact with the vendors/sellers and have to totally rely on the words of the vendors/ seller, Consumer Protection Act has been a power of the customer and if there is inordinate delay in addressing the consumer complaint then such a beneficial enactment is
obsolete reflecting in the failure of the state to protect the consumers from prevalent malpractices of the trade. E. BECAUSE administration of justice is the root of any democracy and if any state fails to provide an active and effective means of administration of justice, it can collapse the entire set up of democracy. So state is duty bound by the directive principles to provide effective and cheaper mode of justice to the citizens. F. BECAUSE in Bijoy Sinha Roy (d) by LR Versus Biswanath Das & or S.C. NO. 4761it was observed in para 18 by the Hon ble S.C: To achieve the object of providing speedy remedy to a consumer steps can be taken under Section 24B of the Act. The National Commission has administrative control over all the State Commissions. Thus, the National Commission is competent to introduce monitoring mechanism for speedy disposal. It is well known that matters are pending at different levels for sufficiently long period which defeats the very object and purpose of the Act. We request the National Commission to consider this aspect and formulate an appropriate action plan. In this regard, we may refer to a recent decision in Hussain versus State of U.P.7 by which directions for action plans have been issued. The National Commission may also consider use of video conferencing facility for examining expert witnesses wherever necessary even then no appropriate action plan have been formulated for the speedy disposal of cases pending before sate commission and district forums.
G. BECAUSE lack of infrastructure which is a big impediment of effective working of the district forums and state commission, State is duty bound to provide all the resources necessary to accommodate the working of such institutions. Hon ble S.C in para 5 of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar: The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. H. BECAUSE due to low disposal rate of the consumer complaints which are already pending and with the increase institution rate in which of complaints are filed daily, soon the pending will be ten folds of what it is now, which will cause discouragement and disappointment to the citizens towards the judicial system. I. BECAUSE there is urgent necessity of introducing a dynamic and comprehensive mechanism impressed upon the Government of India as also the State Governments. That is not only a mandate of equal justice implicit in Art. 14 and right to life and liberty conferred by Art. 21 but also the compulsion of the constitutional directive embodies in Art.39A.
J. BECAUSE the observations of the Hon blesupreme Court which have been talked about in casestime to time have not been acted on by any institutions.for example Hon ble Apex Court Supreme Court in BijoySinha Roy (D) By LR Versus Biswanath Das & or in para no. 17 observed: In the light of above scheme and object of the Act, following issues have emerged during the hearing with regard to functioning of Consumer Fora: (i) (ii) Need to monitor speedy resolution of disputes; Need to avail of ADR mechanism which is now regarded as part of access to justice. None of the respondents really cared to act upon such observations made by Hon ble Supreme Court. K. BECAUSE Respondents are under an obligation to enforce the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and uphold the Constitution of India as such. L. BECAUSE Respondents have failed in their duty to protect the interests of consumers. M. BECAUSE lack of appropriate guidelines/notification by the respondents for quick disposal of consumer complaints have caused delay in justice to the consumers.
N. BECAUSE not filling of vacant posts in district forums and state commissions have caused delay in addressing the complaints which had ultimately lead to defeating the object of the Act. O. BECAUSE the lack of implementation, this law is not useful for the people who are illiterate, poor, and living in rural area. There is no any strong authority to take the steps for improving the awareness to the rural people on the law. P. BECAUSE there is no effective procedure mentioned in the Act when consumer shop online on online sites or portals,the Act is silent on the circumstances where service need to be done by electronic medium since most of the merchant sites and applications redress the complaints online. Q. BECAUSE Consumer protection law or consumer law is considered as an area of law that regulates private law relationships between individual consumers and the business houses that sell those goods and services. But Consumer Protection Act does not cover a wide range of topics, including but not necessarily limited to product liability, privacyrights, unfair business practices, fraud, misrepresentation, and other consumer/business
interactions and none of the respondents have really made it a point to work on making the said act comprehensive. R. BECAUSE the Respondents have failed to discharge their constitutional duties. S. BECAUSE consumers effectively do not have any remedy against the vendors /sellers and inordinate delay in the judgment of District Fora and State Commission results in encouraging malpractices by vendors /sellers. T. BECAUSE it is the fundamental duty of every Indian citizen to safeguard public interest and to espouse the cause of public at large. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may graciously be pleased: (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari directing the Respondents to frame necessary guidelines based on observation of Hon ble Supreme Court for speedy disposal of the complaints pending in State Commission and District Foras.
(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari directing the Respondents to speed up the process of filling up vacant posts of judicial and other members and staff in State Commission and District Foras. (c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari directing respondents to constitute more benches and adhoc appointments for time bound disposal of cases which are pending for more than 2 years. (d) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari directing respondents to curtail the technicalities during the filing and introduce electronic filing of consumer complaints and to curtail technical procedures during adjudication of consumer complaints in the State Commission and District Foras. (e) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari directing respondents to make the process of serving notices via electronic medium so that the complaints can proceed forthwith.
(f) pass such other or further orders as this Hon ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. THROUGH PETITIONER New Delhi Dated:.11.2018 SHANTHA DEVI RAMAN ADVOCATE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER H-1, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI-110021