Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. N.Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioners as wel l as learned Advocate General of the State assisted by Ms. S.N.Phukan, for the S tate respondents. The main grievances of the petitioners are that at present there is no regular President in the State Consumer Forum and the respondent No.4 was appointed as a Member of the State Commission and she cannot act as President o f the Commission in absence of the regular President in view of the provision o f Section 16(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for short the ’Act 1986’) wherein it is stated that - Each State Commission shall consist of- a person w ho is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government, wh o shall be its President and there shall be two or more members in the said Stat e Commission. Admittedly, at present there is no judicial member in the Commissi on as President and in absence of regular President, the respondent No.4, Smti. Basanti Laskar, who was appointed as a Member of the State Commission is actin g as President which is not permissible under law and any action of the responde nt No.4 as President is without jurisdiction. The petitioners have also stated t hat the C.C. Case No. 3/2006 while is pending before the State Commission the sa me has been taken up by the respondent No.4 as President with another member for decision in absence of the President which she cannot take up as per provision of law. The learned Advocate General of the State fairly submits that the simila r question also came up before this Court in WP(C) No.2354 of 2009, wherein this Court while issuing notice also directed the Members of the Commission not to p ronounce the judgment in the case of the petitioner of that case i.e. First App eal No. 3 of 2008. In the instant case also it would be proper to direct the re spondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to give any final decision in the case of the present petitioners i.e C.C.Case No. 3 of 2006. He also assures this Court that he will exercise his good offices so that the President of the Commission can be appoint ed following the provision of Section 16(1) of the aforesaid Act within a very s hort period, so that the litigant may not suffer. In view of the above submissions made by the learned Advocate G eneral, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed not to decide the case of the petitioners i.e. C.C.Case No. 3 of 2006 till the matter is taken up by the Pres ident of the Commission appointed by the State Government exercising its power u nder Section 16(1) of the Act, 1986. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to take up the case of the petitioners being C.C.Ca se No. 3 of 2006 till the appointment of regular President by the State Governme nt in exercising its power under Section 16(1) of the Act, 1986. This Court also hopes and trusts that the learned Advocate Gene ral will utilize his good offices so that the appointment of the President of th e State Commission under Section 16(1) of the Act,1986 can be made within a very short period and the consumers who wants to any decision from the Commission ca n get the same. l of the State. With the aforesaid order, the instant petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Advocate Genera