COMMON CAUSE REGISTERED SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

COMMON CAUSE REGISTERED SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is the statutory responsibility of State Governments to establish District Fora in each district (or as permitted, clubbed districts), and cannot continue ad hoc arrangements using District Judges beyond stipulated time frames. Directions were issued for timelines and termination of ad hoc arrangements.

Parties
Petitioner: Common Cause, a Registered Society; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 1993
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petitions disposed of
Legal Topics
Implementation of Consumer Protection Act, Establishment of District Fora, Public Interest Litigation
Consumer Protection Constitutional Law Implementation of Consumer Protection Act Establishment of District Fora Public Interest Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Common Cause, a Registered Society

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Delay in setting up District Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Responsibility of State Governments in implementing Consumer Protection Act
  3. 3 Permissibility of ad hoc arrangements with District Judges as Presidents of District Fora

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is the statutory responsibility of State Governments to establish District Fora in each district (or as permitted, clubbed districts), and cannot continue ad hoc arrangements using District Judges beyond stipulated time frames. Directions were issued for timelines and termination of ad hoc arrangements.

Court Disposition

Petitions disposed of

Orders

  • Where District Judge functions as President and workload exceeds 150 cases/month for six months, State Government/UT must establish independent District Forum within six months post communication; thereafter High Court may terminate ad hoc arrangement.
  • Where workload does not exceed the minimum, ad hoc arrangement may continue for one year; State/UT must establish independent District Forum (or clubbed districts with Central Government approval) within that year; then High Court may terminate ad hoc arrangement.