SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) The ambit and scope of administrative and superintending jurisdiction of the State Commission over the District Forum has been questioned in this writ petition. The observations and dictum issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, 1992 (3) JT (SC) 602 resulted in amendment of the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 24-B was inserted by the Amending Act No. 5 of 1993, which took effect from 18-6-1993. The newly inserted S. 24-B reads as under :- "24-B. Administrative control - (1) The National Commission shall have administrate control over all the State Commission in the following matters, namely :-(i) Calling for periodical returns regarding the institution, disposal, pendency of cases;(1) issuance of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing of matters, prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the opposite parties, furnishing of English transaction of judgments written in any language, speedy grant of copies of documents;(ii) generally overseeing the functioning of the State Commissions or the District Forum to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are best served without in any way interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.(2) The State Commission shall have administrative control over all the District Fora within its jurisdiction in all matters referred to in sub-section (1)."
(2.) The Hon'ble Apex Court laid emphasis on the concept of effective administrative control by the State Commission on the District Forum in order to achieve proper administration of justice and control in the hierarchy of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The basic lacuna that was noticed by the Supreme Court was :-"Proper operation of the statute requires both administrative and judicial superintendence. While the Act has contemplated judicial superintendence, there is no provision for administrative superintendence. This is a lacuna in the statute."
(3.) To bridge the lacuna in the statute temporarily, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted limited jurisdiction of exercising administrative control, to the National Commission over the State Commissions and the State Commissions over the District Forums. The bare reading of the provisions of S. 24 indicate that the legislature did not intend to give the National Commission or the State Commissions powers of a disciplinary authority or to place the lower Forum under the disciplinary control of higher Forum. No powers were given to the Commission to provide the terms and conditions of appointment or even to recommend names of the members for such appointment.;