Bombay High Court issues notice on PIL seeking establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Palghar district

The Bombay High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction to be issued to the State Government to establish a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission) at District Palghar which came into existence on 1 st August 2014. 

The Counsel representing the Petitioner has submitted that Section 28 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates the State Government to establish a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in each District of the State by way of a Notification. 

His submission, thus, is that the legislative mandate as available under Section 28 of the Act of 2019 is not being followed by the State.   

The Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court  to a photograph of the  Petition which shows that in the Collector’s Office, Room No.101 has been earmarked for establishing a District Commission, however, in absence of a Notification to be issued under Section 28 of the Act of 2019, the District Commission is not functioning which is not only against the mandate of the Act of 2019 but also causing great difficulties to the litigants and the consumers, in whose protection the Parliament had enacted the Act of 2019.  

The  Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the District Palghar was established on 1st August 2014. Ten years’ period has since then elapsed. However, despite there being a clear mandate in Section 28 of the Act of 2019, the District Commission has not been   established by the State Government. 

“We do not see any reason, why despite there being a legislative mandate to the State Government, it has not yet established the District Commission at District Palghar”, the Court said.

The Court  thus, directed  the Additional Government Pleader to seek complete instructions in the matter and file an affidavit within two weeks as to why and under what circumstances, the mandate contained in Section 28 of the Act of 2019 has not been followed by the State Government. 

The Court listed the matter on 19th June 2024.

Leave a Reply