Orissa High Court

Cuttack, Aug. 13: The controversy over functioning of consumer protection councils has intensified in Orissa. While Orissa Consumers’ Association (OCA) has made fresh allegations of non-compliance of court orders, the commissioner-cum-secretary of state food supplies and consumer welfare department, Madhusudan Padhi, is facing contempt proceedings for it.

On October 27, 2008, Orissa High Court had directed the state government for implementing sections 7 and 8 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act that provided for establishment of state consumer protection council and district consumer protection councils.

The Act provided for establishing consumer protection councils to promote and protect the rights of consumers in the state. While the state’s minister in-charge of consumer affairs head the state council as its chairman, collectors head the district consumer protection councils.

The proceedings were initiated in a contempt petition filed by the OCA on constituting and functioning of the consumer protection councils on July 6.

Padhi, a senior IAS officer, was expected to explain why contempt charges should not be considered against him for not implementing the October 27, 2008, court order. Padhi had filed an affidavit seeking “an unconditional apology” for delay in compliance.

“The delay in implementing the orders is not intentional, the high court may drop the proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act as the orders have been complied with,” he pleaded.

In a rejoinder to it, the OCA on Thursday alleged that the state government had set up consumer protection councils for the districts “without application of mind in a casual manner only to escape from rigour of law”.

Taking note of it, the two-judge bench of Justice B.P. Das and Justice S.K. Mishra has fixed August 24 as the next date to decide on the contempt proceedings initiated against the state food supplies and consumer welfare department’s commissioner-cum-secretary. OCA assistant secretary Arun Kumar Sahu alleged that no meetings of the district councils had been held so far, except for one of Nabarangpur district council. The Act mandated not less than two meetings in a year. “Although councils for Angul, Balangir, Dhenkanal, and Rayagada districts were constituted in 2008, no meetings of these councils had taken place,” he said.

“The purpose of the district consumer protection councils has been defeated because of negligence and inaction of the state government. Rights and interest of the consumers are not being protected and they are being exploited and cheated by traders, manufacturers and service providers,” Sahu said.