Allowed

Consumers Association, Palakkad v. Union of India

Kerala HC22 Nov 2011WP(C)/18342/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a project proposal submitted by the petitioner for financial assistance under the Consumer Welfare Fund. The High Court directed the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to reconsider the rejection and conduct a fresh appraisal of the proposal in accordance with the revised guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the rejection letter (Ext.P5) and conduct a fresh appraisal of the project proposal (Ext.P4) in accordance with the Ext.P9 guidelines within two months.

Consumers Association, Palakkad Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 18342 of 2011(P)

¶5

---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, HOTEL SOORYA CITY, SUDHEVAN ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INIDIA- 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, A SURENDRAN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶14

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD – 678 001.

¶15

4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SRI. ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, CGC

¶17

SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA

¶18

R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

VPV

WPCNO.18342/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDING AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP TO THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION BY CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL, LONDON DATED 03/03/2010.
EXT.P2:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDING SPECIAL CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF UNITED NATIONS TO THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION BY UNITED NATIONS, DATED 31/07/2007.
EXT.P3:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDING SWAMI VIVEKANANDA NATIONAL AWARD FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION-2001 AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION DATED 24-03-2003.
EXT.P4:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ELECTED MEMBERS OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
EXT.P5:	PHOTOCOPY OF REJECTION LETTER FROM MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS DATED 15/11/2010.
EXT.P6:	PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER BY DIST. SUPPLY OFFICER ADDRESSED TO DIST. COLLECTOR PALAKKAD DATED 15.06.2010.
EXT.P7:	LETTER BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS ACKNOWLEDGING THE MERITORIOUS SERVICES OF PETITIONER DATED 02/01/2008.
EXT.P8:	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI DATED 14.05.2011.
EXT.P9:	PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CONSUMER WELFARE FUND RULES 1992 AND REVISED GUIDELINES 2007.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

VPV

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.18342 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2011

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner, a Consumer Association, which is a registered Charitable Society functioning as a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) at Palakkad, is challenging Ext.P5 through which their request for financial assistance from the Consumer Welfare Fund constituted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, is rejected. The petitioner inter alia seeks direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider the matter in view of Ext.P8 representation.

¶35

According to the petitioner, the Association is functioning for the last 20 years in the field of consumer awareness and had gained international recognition and won national awards as evident from Ext.P1 to P3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 project proposal aiming at promotion of consumer awareness activities. The project proposal contains programmes for consumer empowerment through elected members of the Local Self Government Institutions in Kerala,

¶36

W.P.(C).18342/11-P

¶37

-2-

¶38

throughout the 14 districts. But the project proposal was not accepted for providing financial assistance and a letter of rejection was given as per Ext.P5, issued from the 1^st respondent. It is mentioned in Ext.P5 that the proposal was forwarded to the State Government for obtaining their comments, but the State Government have not recommended

¶39

the project stating the following reasons:

¶40

i. There is no record to prove that the Association has conducted any consumer awareness programme at the State and National Level or it has any other recognition as claimed.

¶41

ii. It is not felt necessary to have conducted consumer awareness training programme under the leadership of a consumer association for the members of the LSGs in Kerala.

¶42

iii. The Association expects an expenditure of Rs.15,82,050/- for inauguration of the Consumer Awareness Programme at State level at programmes for members of the LSGs. Thus a sum of Rs.26 lakhs is estimated for a day's programme. Training programmes/classes are conducted by Government for the elected Members of LSGIS level on continuous and regular basis. Consumer Awareness is also subject in these programmes. Several Consumer Associations are functioning in District and State level in the State. Hence it is not desirable to extend large scale financial assistance to a particular Association for expending in a district.

¶43

iv. There is no system to monitor the utilization of such funds expended in the State.

¶44

According to the petitioner, the reasons for rejection

¶45

W.P.(C).18342/11-P

¶46

-3-

¶47

of the project proposal stated in Ext.P5 are not sustainable. It is contended that the rejections is made solely depending on the report obtained from the State Government, which is against the procedure contemplated as per the guidelines fixed by the 1^st respondent in this regard. The petitioner had produced Ext.P9 Consumer Welfare Fund Rules, 1992 and the revised guidelines issued with respect to providing financial assistance from the consumer welfare fund. Referring to Section IX of the said guidelines, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the procedure for scrutiny and approval of proposals is specifically enumerated thereunder and no scrutiny or appraisal of the project proposal submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with those guidelines, has been conducted. It is pointed out that the State Government themselves have sent Ext.P7 letter to the 1^st respondent certifying about the activities of the petitioner Association and therefore the reasons mentioned in Ext.P5 is against the view taken by the State Government with respect to the functioning of the petitioner Association.

¶48

Per contra, Sri.Subair Pulikkool, Additional Central Government standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that the project proposal is rejected mainly because

¶49

W.P.(C).18342/11-P

¶50

-4-

¶51

of the fact that there is no record to show that the petitioner Association had conducted any activities connected with the consumer welfare. It is pointed out that Section V of Ext.P9 which deals with the eligibility, specifically prescribes that any agency or organization engaged in consumer welfare activities for a period of 3 years after its registration, alone will be entitled for considering approval of any project proposal. It is contended that Ext.P5 rejection is made on the basis that the petitioner Association has failed to prove that they have conduced any awareness training programmes or other activities in consumer welfare during the period prior to submission of the project proposal.

¶52

Considering the rival contentions and the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner, that the appraisal of the project proposal was not made in accordance with the parameters prescribed through Ext.P9 revised guidelines, deserves merit. Therefore I am of the view that a re-appraisal of the request for financial assistance directly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the revised guidelines formulated will result in providing ends of justice.

¶53

W.P.(C).18342/11-P

¶54

-5-

¶55

Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 and to conduct fresh appraisal with respect to the approval of Ext.P4 project appraisal, in view of Ext.P8 representation submitted. Needless to say that the authority concerned shall appraise the request on the basis of Ext.P9 guidelines formulated in this regard, untrammelled by any of the observations contained herein.

¶56

The needful in this regard shall be done as early as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The authority considering the matter may provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner Association, if found necessary.

¶57

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶58

okb

Consumers Association, Palakkad v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Consumers Association, Palakkad v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala and 3 Others

Lasina P.V.C. Vs Calicut University

Dr.Seena N.K Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Sulaiman Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission and

R.K.Raghavan Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Devassia P.J. Vs State of Kerala and Others