Governments are in the habit of making loud and sensational announcements when any new scheme is about to be launched. They are publicity hungry. But when the schemes thus announced are to be translated into practice on the ground they pull a flake. The result is that people lose faith in most of the high sounding schemes and projects announced by political leaders and ministers. Our experience tells us that the publicity-starved leaders create problems for the people and for themselves as well. They should desist from making tall claims and pronouncing hard to achieve promises.
The case in sight is of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) and Special Tribunal (ST). CDRC is supposed to redress the grievances of consumers if a grievance is reported to it. The ultimate purpose of this measure is to protect the interests of consumers from exploitation. If a consumer is not satisfied with a transaction that he has made and feels that he has been dealt a raw deal, he has the right to knock at the consumer’s court and ask for justice. There is nothing by way of arbitration in it. The deciding authority examines the case on its merits and gives the verdict which has legal legitimacy.
It is regrettable that only the announcement of CDRC is there and in practice there is no such Commission or Special Tribunal which could be called functional. The reason is that the Government did not fill the vacancies of the Chairman and members of the Commission. Why the vacancies have not been filled remains a mystery like so many other mysteries of our administrative machinery. Actually this matter has come up as a result of a PIL and the High Court has found to its surprise that the organization is non-functional. According to the observations of the court there are about 1200 cases pertaining to the flood sufferers of 2014 devastating floods pending before the Commission and the people have been left without any redressing mechanism in view of non-operation of the Commission. The court has taken serious view of the case. Justice cannot be denied to the people and the Government is duty bound to provide a mechanism of foolproof justice to the people. Unfortunately, aspersions are cast at the Government apprehending that there are some elements at work behind the curtain who do not want the public grievances to be heard and disposed off according to their merit. The Divisional Bench of the State High Court feels that that the executive wing of the Government is duty bound to provide redressing mechanism to the people for which legislative enactment is already in force. We are forced to imagine some mysterious hand behind the episode that withholds the Government from taking action against the defaulters.
Taking very serious view of the case, the Court has in its recent order given three weeks time to the Chief Secretary to make the two institutions fully functional and report to the Court about what has been done. We highly appreciate the serious view of the matter taken by the Court. The vacancies of the Chairman and members of the Commission have to be filled through the recommendations of selection panel as stipulated in such cases. Evidently, not appointing the Chairman and the members of the Commission is tantamount to denial of the rights of consumers, which no organ of the state can tolerate. It is regrettable that a decision which is entirely in the hands of the Government is required to be taken by the Court of Law. It is what we call passing of the buck. Of late we have found a tendency growing among the administrative functionaries of shunning the responsibility and manipulating some cases in a manner that their decision, which obviously has to be against the Government, is obtained through court verdict. When this situation emerges, it is bad governance if not the failure of the Government. We understand the value of a democratic dispensation in the sense that the judiciary is empowered to take a decision without coming under the influence of the political establishment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel