|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ON May 15 this year when the apex consumer court ordered Kanpur Development Authority to allot Shanti Devi an alternate plot, it was for her the culmination of a long struggle for justice, spanning three decades. Thirtyfour years ago, KDA had allotted her husband, S.N.Shukla, a plot and even collected money for it, only to cancel the allotment later on the ground that he had not paid. When KDA refused to see reason, he sought the help of court. Following his demise during the pendency of the case, Shanti Devi had carried on the fight against KDA. But four months since the order, Shanti Devi has realised that her problems are not over. Despite her repeated requests, KDA has not complied with the order. It is not the only statutory authority that has shown such disrespect and disregard to the order of the court. In 2002, the apex court had come down heavily on Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for its failure to abide by its order, and had made it clear that land development authorities cannot delay implementation of the order of the national commission or the state commission merely on the ground that they had filed an appeal against it. So long as there is no stay against the order, they have to be implemented immediately, the apex court had said. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had dealt with two cases. While in the case of Pushpa Jain vs HUDA, the order of the state commission had not been implemented for two years, in the case of HUDA vs Mahesh Kumar, HUDA had not complied with the order of the apex court for more than a year on the ground that a special leave petition had been field before the Supreme Court. But obviously, even such orders have not brought about an attitudinal change in these agencies. In fact their arrogance has reached such levels that the apex court this year thought it fit to discuss the issue in detail at two conferences organised by it. The only alternative left for courts in such cases is to go for coercive measures (in other words, use Section 27 that provides for imprisonment for non-compliance of the order), he said. He was addressing the secretaries in charge of consumer affairs in state governments and presidents of state consumer disputes redressal commissions at a two-day conference in New Delhi. Then in the third week of August, in a similar conference organised by the apex court in New Delhi, this issue of delay on the part of the implementing agencies in executing the orders of the consumer courts came up for discussion yet again. And this time the conference called for stricter implementation of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act that provide for enforcement of the orders of the courts and penalties for failing to follow these orders. Section 27 provides for imprisonment up to three years and a fine for failing to implement the orders of the court. These statutory authorities have for long got away with inefficiency, sloth and corruption. It’s time state governments exercised some control over them and ensured that the orders of the consumer courts are respected and implemented by these agencies.
|
||
|
|
||
