GOVERNMENT ORDERS FOR SETTING UP CIRCUIT BENCH AT MADURAI I

GOVERNMENT ORDERS FOR SETTING UP CIRCUIT BENCH AT MADURAI IGNORED BY STATE COMMISSION

ANNOUNCES  INAUGURATION OF ADDITIONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION REMAINS MUTE SPECTATOR

       The consumer of southern districts have been representing the Government of Tamil Nadu right from the year 2002 for setting up of Circuit Bench at Madurai under Section 17-B of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. As there was no response for the representation from the Government of Tamil Nadu consumer organizations and advocates  filed a writ petition as Public Interest Litigation Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court was pleased to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the representation in light of Section 17-B of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. Subsequently on obtaining the remarks/opinion of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai the Department of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. No. 12 & 13 dated 12-02-2010 has issued orders for setting up of Circuit Bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) at Madurai.  As sought by the SCDRC the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed 2 additional judicial members vide G.O. No. 49 dated 29-05-2010 for regular functioning of Circuit Bench at Madurai. It is pertinent to point out here that the building for stationing of Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai District Court premises as adumbrated in the above G.O. is ready for occupation.

          The advocates bar association and consumer organizations in southern  districts  has been requesting the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai to implement the order letter and spirit for early inaugural of the Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai, for hearing the original complaints and appeals against the orders of the 13 District Fora (as that of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court jurisdiction) namely  (1) Madurai  (2) Kanyakumari  (3) Karur (4) Dindigul (5) Pudukottai (6) Theni (7) Sivagangai  (8) Virdhunagar (9) Tanjore (10) Ramanathapuram (11) Tutucorin (12) Thirunelveli (13)  Tiruchirapalli.

       But the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been showing indifferent attitude in inaugurating up of Circuit Bench at Madurai is creating lot of hardship to the consumers of southern districts. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission if inaugurated at Madurai in the earliest the consumers of the southern districts will be immensely benefited like that of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

      The Circuit Bench of Maharastra SCDRC is effectively and regularly functioning at Nagpur, like that of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.  The Nagpur Bench of Maharastra SCDRC is vested with jurisdiction like that of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.  Similarly the same factors may be taken into consideration and Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai shall be ordered to be functioned regularly having the jurisdiction 13 districts like that of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The Madurai Advocates Bar Association has also through its resolution requested the Government of Tamil Nadu and SCDRC to inaugurate the Circuit Bench at Madurai without any further delay.

       There is no impediment for inaugurating the Circuit Bench at Madurai on the lines of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as government has accorded its permission for constitution of Circuit Bench at Madurai, the building has been completed and handed over, two additional members with judicial back ground for regular functioning of Circuit Bench at Madurai has been appointed.

        The consumers of southern districts strongly apprehend that certain vested interests are attempting to create hurdles by demanding the State Commission by setting up of Additional Bench at Chennai  and thereby delay the inaugurate of the  Bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madurai. It is clearly stated in the GO that though the State Commission has recommended for utilizing the additional member with judicial back ground both for additional bench and circuit bench, the Government has rightly considered the welfare of the southern district consumer and ordered only for setting up of the Circuit Bench at Madurai. There is no whisper about the creation of Additional Bench at Chennai in the said GO. It is rather surprising that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai instead of inaugurating the Circuit Bench at Madurai is inaugurating the Additional Bench at Chennai itself.

         The Registrar of the State Commission due to pressure of vested interest is attempting to shift the present DCDRF/Madurai to the new buildings to temporarily stall the  request of early inauguration to back burner. By this move the State Commission is thinking of delaying the inaugural at Madurai by citing non availability of accommodation.  And the Madurai DCDRF is taking hasty steps to shift to the new building to facilitate delay of inaugural of the Bench at Madurai and the has been kept pending due to stiff opposition from lawyers of Madurai District and southern districts.

       There is no larger public interest in the demand for creation of Additional Bench at Chennai, but for some vested interest, the overriding factor is economic. But, it is the `big picture' and the larger interests of consumers that must be borne in mind and not petty/selfish/vested interest of very few people since the Consumer Protection Act itself is a socio-economic welfare legislation. The consumers of southern district are confident that such tactics for personal gains will not be appreciated by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Hon’ble Chief Minister is expected to intervene in the larger interest of the consumers of southern districts.  Any attempt to further delay the inaugural, by creating artificial and imaginary hurdles by SCDRC may well result in public discontent/displeasure over the attitude of the Government for going slow in implementing its own orders.

        The consumer organizations in southern districts strongly condemn the anti-consumer stand taken by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (which is purported to act as guardian to the consumers of the entire State of Tamil Nadu).  The Bar Associations of southern districts are likely to initiate and intensify their agitations against the indifferent attitude of SCDRC and inaction on the part of the Dept. of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu.

ANNOUNCES  INAUGURATION OF ADDITIONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION REMAINS MUTE SPECTATOR

       The consumer of southern districts have been representing the Government of Tamil Nadu right from the year 2002 for setting up of Circuit Bench at Madurai under Section 17-B of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. As there was no response for the representation from the Government of Tamil Nadu consumer organizations and advocates  filed a writ petition as Public Interest Litigation Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court was pleased to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the representation in light of Section 17-B of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. Subsequently on obtaining the remarks/opinion of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai the Department of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. No. 12 & 13 dated 12-02-2010 has issued orders for setting up of Circuit Bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) at Madurai.  As sought by the SCDRC the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed 2 additional judicial members vide G.O. No. 49 dated 29-05-2010 for regular functioning of Circuit Bench at Madurai. It is pertinent to point out here that the building for stationing of Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai District Court premises as adumbrated in the above G.O. is ready for occupation.

          The advocates bar association and consumer organizations in southern  districts  has been requesting the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai to implement the order letter and spirit for early inaugural of the Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai, for hearing the original complaints and appeals against the orders of the 13 District Fora (as that of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court jurisdiction) namely  (1) Madurai  (2) Kanyakumari  (3) Karur (4) Dindigul (5) Pudukottai (6) Theni (7) Sivagangai  (8) Virdhunagar (9) Tanjore (10) Ramanathapuram (11) Tutucorin (12) Thirunelveli (13)  Tiruchirapalli.

       But the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been showing indifferent attitude in inaugurating up of Circuit Bench at Madurai is creating lot of hardship to the consumers of southern districts. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission if inaugurated at Madurai in the earliest the consumers of the southern districts will be immensely benefited like that of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

      The Circuit Bench of Maharastra SCDRC is effectively and regularly functioning at Nagpur, like that of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.  The Nagpur Bench of Maharastra SCDRC is vested with jurisdiction like that of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.  Similarly the same factors may be taken into consideration and Circuit Bench of SCDRC at Madurai shall be ordered to be functioned regularly having the jurisdiction 13 districts like that of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The Madurai Advocates Bar Association has also through its resolution requested the Government of Tamil Nadu and SCDRC to inaugurate the Circuit Bench at Madurai without any further delay.

       There is no impediment for inaugurating the Circuit Bench at Madurai on the lines of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as government has accorded its permission for constitution of Circuit Bench at Madurai, the building has been completed and handed over, two additional members with judicial back ground for regular functioning of Circuit Bench at Madurai has been appointed.

        The consumers of southern districts strongly apprehend that certain vested interests are attempting to create hurdles by demanding the State Commission by setting up of Additional Bench at Chennai  and thereby delay the inaugurate of the  Bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madurai. It is clearly stated in the GO that though the State Commission has recommended for utilizing the additional member with judicial back ground both for additional bench and circuit bench, the Government has rightly considered the welfare of the southern district consumer and ordered only for setting up of the Circuit Bench at Madurai. There is no whisper about the creation of Additional Bench at Chennai in the said GO. It is rather surprising that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai instead of inaugurating the Circuit Bench at Madurai is inaugurating the Additional Bench at Chennai itself.

         The Registrar of the State Commission due to pressure of vested interest is attempting to shift the present DCDRF/Madurai to the new buildings to temporarily stall the  request of early inauguration to back burner. By this move the State Commission is thinking of delaying the inaugural at Madurai by citing non availability of accommodation.  And the Madurai DCDRF is taking hasty steps to shift to the new building to facilitate delay of inaugural of the Bench at Madurai and the has been kept pending due to stiff opposition from lawyers of Madurai District and southern districts.

       There is no larger public interest in the demand for creation of Additional Bench at Chennai, but for some vested interest, the overriding factor is economic. But, it is the `big picture' and the larger interests of consumers that must be borne in mind and not petty/selfish/vested interest of very few people since the Consumer Protection Act itself is a socio-economic welfare legislation. The consumers of southern district are confident that such tactics for personal gains will not be appreciated by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Hon’ble Chief Minister is expected to intervene in the larger interest of the consumers of southern districts.  Any attempt to further delay the inaugural, by creating artificial and imaginary hurdles by SCDRC may well result in public discontent/displeasure over the attitude of the Government for going slow in implementing its own orders.

        The consumer organizations in southern districts strongly condemn the anti-consumer stand taken by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (which is purported to act as guardian to the consumers of the entire State of Tamil Nadu).  The Bar Associations of southern districts are likely to initiate and intensify their agitations against the indifferent attitude of SCDRC and inaction on the part of the Dept. of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu.