RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, mandamus is being sought to the respondents to fill up the vacancy of President. District Consumer Forum, Bundi which is lying vacant since August, 1995. From the reply filed by the respondents it transpires that the State Government is requesting to the High Court to provide names of eligible RHJS Officer, who could be appointed as President, District Consumer Forum, Bundi. The details of the communication alleged to have been made with the Registrar of Rajasthan High Court have been given in para 14 of the reply. The State Government has also requested the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court for asking the District Judges to undertake the additional work of District Forum where the posts of the Presidents are lying vacant, still no action has been taken by the High Court in this connection.

(2.) The President of District Consumer Forum is to be nominated by the State Government under Sec.10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

(3.) More than two years have passed since the post of the President of District Consumer Forum is lying vacant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the State Government to take effective steps to nominate / appoint eligible person as President of District Consumer Forum, Bundi within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, they may request the High Court to authorise the District and Sessions Judge, Bundi to undertake additional work as President of District Consumer Forum, Bundi. For this purpose a certified copy of this order be sent to the High Court and if any such request is made alongwith a certified copy of this order, the High Court shall consider the request promptly.