2020 (5) TMI 468 - HC - Indian Laws

Conversion of Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into the Consumer Welfare Fund Rules, 2010 - transfer of the unclaimed or unpaid amounts of unidentifiable consumers lying with respondents to Consumer Welfare Fund or a Suspense Account as well as for refund of the same - HELD THAT - This Court is of the firm view that present writ petition is untenable in law inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to appreciate that there is a system of separation of powers under the Indian Constitution and it is not for the courts to either legislate or convert bills/acts into rules or to disburse amounts to certain hospitals or for certain causes, howsoever genuine they may be. The petitioner would like the unutilized and unclaimed amounts lying with Cooperative Banks, Insurance Companies etc being given a similar treatment. Petitioner has adverted to the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and Consumer Protection Rule, 1987 and the Guidelines provisioning for Consumer Protection Councils. It is urged that with the said Councils should be given the complete control over the unutilized and unclaimed funds. This, according to him, can be achieved by amending the Consumer protection Act with a view to re-constitute and re-construct the Councils under the Act so as to enable them with wider powers and control - We do not see how Petitioner s viewpoint should be all-pervading and such institutions and departments should be forced to be compliant with his suggestions and ideas. The Petitioner has collated certain facts and figures to impress upon us that enormous amounts of Funds are lying in credit with several departments and wings of the Government. But, all these contentions remain Petitioner s ipse dixit and nothing actionable is there in law. The preferential treatment sought for the Safdarjung Hospital may not be founded on any bias, as indisputably the said Institution is presently doing great service to the nation, but we have no criteria to make a distinction for any one hospital. Significantly, the utilization of the funds is not a function that the courts are equipped to decide - the said petition was also half-baked, lacking content and structure, prompting the court to turn down the same. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Conversion of Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into Consumer Welfare Fund Rules, 2010
- Transfer of unclaimed amounts to Consumer Welfare Fund or Suspense Account
- Refund of unclaimed amounts to consumers
- Disbursement of funds to senior resident doctors and hospitals
- Enactment of Consumer Welfare Fund Act, 2010
- Judicial review of government actions regarding unclaimed amounts
- Control over unclaimed funds by Consumer Protection Councils
- Concerns over misuse of unclaimed funds by institutions
- Lack of legal basis for court intervention in policy matters
- Lack of cause of action for court intervention
- Donation to Safdarjung Hospital for COVID-19 relief

Analysis:
1. The petition sought various reliefs, including converting the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into rules, transferring unclaimed amounts to designated funds, refunding unclaimed amounts, and disbursing funds to hospitals. The petitioner relied on constitutional provisions and a Supreme Court judgment for support.

2. The court acknowledged the importance of the issues raised but emphasized the separation of powers under the Constitution. It held that courts cannot legislate or direct the executive in policy matters, especially when no statutory violation is alleged.

3. The court noted the existence of Consumer Welfare Funds under various laws and guidelines, indicating the government's awareness of consumer welfare issues. It highlighted the regulatory frameworks governing institutions like banks and insurance companies regarding unclaimed funds.

4. The petitioner's suggestions to amend laws and empower Consumer Protection Councils were deemed unnecessary and not supported by legal grounds. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to establish a legal basis for the court to intervene in the matters raised.

5. Concerns over the misuse of unclaimed funds were dismissed, as the funds are accounted for and subject to audit. The court emphasized that the petitioner's contentions lacked legal merit and failed to demonstrate a legal duty on the respondents.

6. The court rejected the petition, citing the lack of a valid cause of action and the petitioner's failure to meet the threshold for court intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The attempt to seek sympathy for a donation to a hospital was deemed insufficient legal grounds for court action.

7. The court noted a previous petition by the same petitioner that was also dismissed for lacking substance. The current petition was similarly deemed deficient and dismissed for lacking merit and a valid cause of action.

8. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that courts cannot dictate the utilization of funds or direct refunds without a legal basis. The order was to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsel via email.