State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht (SC) BS194014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

I.A. Nos. 8, 11, 15 and...in SLP(C) No. 6928 of 1999 with WP(C) No. 164 of 2002. D/d. 4.5.2005.

State of U.P. and others - Petitioners

Versus

Jeet S. Bisht and another - Respondents

For the Petitioners in SLP :- R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP) Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP).

For the NCDRC Bar Asson. in WP 164/02 :- M N Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. Ranji P Thomas, S K Sharma, V N Raghupathy, C K Sucharita, (NP).

For the Union of India :- N N Goswami, Sr. Adv., Kiran Bhardwaj, S N Terdal, B K Prasad, (NP) B.V. Balaram Das, (NP).

For the State of Assam :- Ms. Krishna Sarma, V K Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, Amrita Bhattacharya, Corporate Law Group, Advs.

For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :- Anil Shrivastav and Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocates.

For the State of Andhra Pradesh :- D Bharathi Reddy, B Vikas, T V Ratnam, (NP).

For the State of Bihar :- Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates.

For the State of Chhatisgarh :- Suparna Srivastava, Deepti Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Prakash Shrivastava, (NP).

For the NCT Delhi :- Ashok Bhan, Kiran Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

For the UTs of Daman & Diu :- Sunita Sharma, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar D S Mahra, Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar.

For the State of Gujarat :- Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates.

For the State of Goa :- A Subhashini, Advocate.

For the State of Haryana :- Kavita Wadia, (NP).

For the State of Himachal Pradesh :- J.S. Attri, Addl. Adv. Genl.

For the State of J & K :- Anis Suhrawardy, (NP).

For the State of Jharkhand :- Ashok Mathur, (NP).

For the State of Kerala :- K.R. Sasiprabhu, MKS Menon and G. Indira, Advocates.

For the State of Manipur :- K.H. Nobin Singh, Advocate.

For the State of Mizoram :- Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates.

For the Govt. of Mizoram :- K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R Sathish, Advocates.

For the State of Maharashtra :- S S Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates.

For the State of Madhya Pradesh :- Satish K. Agnihotri and Rohit Singh, Advocates.

For the State of Meghalaya :- Ranjan Mukherjee, (NP).

For the State of Nagaland :- Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates.

For the State of Orissa :- Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Moushumi Gahlot and Smruti Mohanty, Advocates.

For the Govt of Pondicherry :- V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.

For the State of Punjab :- R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Genl. S. Krishnaraj and Arun K Sinha, Advocates.

For the State of Rajasthan :- Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Genl. Naveen Kr. Singh and Shivangi, Advocates.

For the State of Sikkim :- Brijender Chahar, Jyoti Chahar and Ashok Mathur, Advocates.

For the State of Tripura :- Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Advocates.

For the State of Tamilnadu :- R Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, S.N. Jha, Subramonium Prasad, Advocates.

For the State of Uttaranchal :- Rachana Srivastava, Addl. Adv. Genl.

For the State of UP :- R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M. Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP), Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP).

For the State of W.B. :- Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma, Advocates.

For the UT Chandigarh :- Kamini Jaiswal and Shomila Bakshi, Advocates.

For the Applicants in IAs 8 :- Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv., V P Sharma, M.P.S Tomar, Sandhya Goswami and Malvika Trivedi, Advocates.

For the Applicant in IA 15/05 :- Ravindra Kumar, N.S. Bisht, (NP) V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, MBRS Raju, S. Sunita, S. Sachin, J.B. Ravi, Riju Raj Jamawal, M. Sailaja, S. Srinivasan, Rajeev Sharma, (NP) Sanjay R Hegde, (NP) Radha Shyam Jena, (NP) J.P. Dhanda, (NP) Revathy Raghavan, (NP) T Mahipal, (NP) Pallav Shishodia, (NP).

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Making Consumer Fora Fully Functional.

[Para ]

Cases Referred :-

State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht, 2005(5) Scale 289.

ORDER

I.A. No. 8/2003 in SLP(C) No. 6928/1999

1. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has pressed in particular relief (f) sought for in the application. The learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that a decision in this regard has been taken favourable to the applicant and it is awaiting clearance at the highest level. Six weeks's time is allowed for the purpose of finalising the a decision and bringing the same on record.

2. The attention of the learned counsel for the State of U.P. is invited to the order dated 17.1.2005 made on I.A. Nos. 12 and 13. The learned counsel for the State states that the appointed time of four months is yet to expire and the decision will be taken within that much time and then brought on record through an affidavit.

I.A. No. 11/2003

3. To come up for hearing with W.P.(C) No. 164/2002.

I.A. No. 15/2005

4. Issue notice to the State of Uttaranchal.

WP(C) No. 164/2002

5. The matter would need to be heard afresh in view of several subsequent developments. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed liberty of filing a fresh and complete statement setting out the relevant facts and statistics, the problematic areas wherein directions of the Court are sought for, for the purpose of making several Consumer Fora fully functional, and the suggestions which the Petitioner chooses to put forth for the consideration of the Court in the direction of resolution. As prayed, four weeks' time is allowed for the purpose.

.