MADAN LAL DAWAR Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Madan Lal Dawar has come up in appeal against the order dated 30.4.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby his complaint against Shri Ramesh, a milk dairy owner and milk supplier of Gurgaon, and the Director, Health Services, and other officers of the Directorate of Health, Haryana, including the Controller, Weights and Measures, Haryana, and the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, has been dismissed.

(2.) The complainant had approached the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, with the grievance of a general nature of public good but without specifying the precise deficiency in service on the part of the respondents - officers of the Haryana Government. For example, respondent No.1 Ramesh was running a milk dairy without a licence from the Municipal Committee supplying adulterated milk against which activity the inspector ate staff of the Health Department was not discharging their duties. It was also mentioned in the complaint that urea, acid, chemicals and dirty water were being added in the milk and that the cattle were let loose after milching to feed themselves on dirty things. All this, according to the complainant, was adversely affecting the health of the children and the patients. In reply to the complaint, the officers of the Health Department pleaded that though the Food/health Inspectors had been authorised to check and ensure correct measurement of milk being supplied and to stop its adulteration, yet all these were sovereign functions of the State Government which could not be challenged under the Consumer Protection Act. The learned District Forum dismissed me complaint against which the complainant has come up in appeal.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties though we do not agree with the plea taken by the respondents that the functions of the Food/health Inspectors and the Directorate of Health, etc. are sovereign in nature and they can claim any sort of immunity for their deficiency in service under the consumer jurisdiction, yet from the facts and circumstances of the present case we are satisfied that the allegations levelled in the complaint are vague, indefinite and sweeping in nature, for the redressal whereof no definite or specific directions can be issued. In any case, in reply to our notice the senior officers of the Health Department have appeared before us and have assured that all possible steps have already been taken and shall continue to be so done for the proper maintenance of sanitary and health conditions and that the milk supplied is in accordance with the norms and public at large do not have any grievance so far as the measurement, standard, quality and purity of the milk is concerned. In view of this position, we do not consider it proper to issue any further direction in the matter. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.