ORDER Fakhruddin, J. This petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner on the ground that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short, the 'District Forum') is not functioning properly. It is submitted that the President of the District Forum often goes on leave and whenever he goes on leave he passes orders that during the period he is on leave sittings would not be done. It is said that the President was on leave on 30-10-1998 and 31 -10-1998, from 2-11 -1998 to 3-11-1998, from 16- 11-1998 to 20-11-1998 and from 1-12-1998 to 12-12-1998. It is alleged that during this absence of the President, the respondent No. 6, the District Forum remained closed; the cases filed during this period were not made available to the Members of the District Forum who were restrained from holding sittings and hearing the cases. The petitioner has filed Annexure P-2 to show that one Tilak Raj Arora filed a case before the District Forum which dismissed it, an appeal was preferred before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') and the State Commission remanded the matter in 1995 and since thereafter the matter remains pending and he is not getting redressal of his grievances within the period prescribed under the Act with the result that he is incurring expenditure for coming from and going to Bhopal. It is submitted that the Advocates practicing in the District Forum, Gwalior have passed a resolution regarding the closure of the District Forum off and on due to the proceeding on leave by the President and submitted a representation in that respect to various authorities but no heed was paid. The petitioner submits that under the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (for short, the 1987 Rules') Rule, 4(9) stipulates that the District Forum shall not ordinarily adjourn a complaint more than once and shall decide the complaint within 90 days from the date of notice received by the opposite party where complaint does not require analysis of testing of the goods and within 150 days if it requires analysis or testing of the goods. The petitioner further submits that in regard to the function of the District Forum, in case of Gulzarilal Agrawal vs. The Accounts Officer (1996) III CPJ 12 (SC), the Apex Court has held that where any vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the State Commission, the senior-most (in order of appointment) member holding office for the time being, shall discharge the function of the President until a person is appointed to fill such vacancy, and reliance has been placed on the said judgment to the effect that the said judgment is binding on all Courts and Tribunals in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in their return raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has challenged the working and actions of the respondent No. 3, the Chairman of the District Forum, which is headed by a member of the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh, and has prayed for directions which are contrary to the provisions contained in sections 14, 14(2), 14(2A) and 18-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act'), the petitioner's case is based on Rule 3(7) and (8) of the 1987 Rule which have become redundant after substitution of section 14(2) an d insertion of section 18-A by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991 (for short, the 'Amendment Act of 1991) with effect from 15-6-1991. Though in the return of respondents No. 1 and 2 a plea was taken that Rule 3(7) arid (8) is inconsistent and ultra vires the provisions of the Amendment Act of IS 91, relevant details and grounds are not furnished. In para 3 of the return section 14(2) and Rule 4(4) have been referred. In para 4 referring Rule 3(7) and, it is again stated that it has become redundant with the insertion of section 18-A in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1991, and it is contended that respondent No. 4 cannot discharge the functions of the President in the at sence of the President. In para 4 referring Rule 3(7) and, it is again stated that it has become redundant with the insertion of section 18-A in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1991, and it is contended that respondent No. 4 cannot discharge the functions of the President in the at sence of the President. In para 6 it is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. V. K. Jain, (1991) 1 CRJ 50, there was a need to substitute a new section, i.e. section 14(2) by the Amendment Act of 1991, and to delete Rules 3(7), (8) and 4(10) in the case of District Forum, and to insert Rule 6(10) and Rule 7(10) in the case of State Commission in their place in consonance with the provisions contained in sections 14, 14(2), 14(3) and 18-A of the Act. As regards the grounds raised in the petition, it is stated that every effort is made to dispose of the cases early, but it is not possible to dispose of every case within the time frame of 90 days. It is submitted that the President was on leave and, as such, sittings of the District Forum could not be held in view of the statutory provisions. In para 5.4 it is stated that the respondent No. 3 had taken leave from 1-12-1998 to 11-12-1998. So far as the case of Gulzarilal Agrawal vs. The Accounts Officer (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that the said case is based on its peculiar circumstances. In the special plea it is submitted that the District Forum, created under the Act, has the trappings of a Civil Court and has to discharge its functions in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is stated that in the District Forum the Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge is appointed to act as its President; though the District Judge while acting as President of the District Forum is on deputation to the State Government, his services continue to be under the superintendence of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that in the District Forum the Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge is appointed to act as its President; though the District Judge while acting as President of the District Forum is on deputation to the State Government, his services continue to be under the superintendence of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that this writ petition is directed against the President in the discharge of his official acts alleging the same to be illegal, and such a petition against the acts of the Judicial Officer has to be preferred at the Main Seat of the High Court and, as such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. At (B) of the special plea it is stated that the mandate of section 10(1) (a) of the Act and the quasi-judicial character of the District Forum require that the President must be a judicially trained person fully acquainted with the Court procedure, rights and liabilities emanating from the substantive laws, civil and criminal, etc., and shall be able to weigh the legally admissible evidences and decide the issues posed before him. It is stated that the eligibility of the members as laid down in section 10(l)(b) is distinct and different from the eligibility for appointment of the President. In (c) of the special plea it is stated that the definition of the 'member' has been inserted by section 2(l)(jj) of the Act. It is contended that the definition of 'member' has to be read in consonance with section 18-A of the Act for the purpose of discharge of functions of the President. It is stated that if any member who is not qualified to be appointed as District Judge, is allowed to function and to hold sittings of the District Forum in the absence of the President, that would make the mandatory provisions of sections 14(2), 14(2-A) and 18-A of the Act. nugatory. It is stated that section 29-A of the Act deals only with the situation enumerated in that section. It is contended that the provisions of section 29-A cannot be resorted to allow a member to conduct the proceedings of a case and decide it finally even if such a member is not qualified to be appointed as a district Judge. It is stated that section 29-A of the Act deals only with the situation enumerated in that section. It is contended that the provisions of section 29-A cannot be resorted to allow a member to conduct the proceedings of a case and decide it finally even if such a member is not qualified to be appointed as a district Judge. The respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted their joint return and have referred to Rule 3(8) of the 1987 Rules to contend that when the President is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the senior-most (in order of the appointment) member shall discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions. They have also filed documents (Annexures R-4/1, R- 4/2, R-4/3, R-4/4 and R-4/5.) Vide Annexure R-4/1 the President directed that during his absence on leave no sittings of the District Forum shall be held on 30-10-1998, 31-10-1998, 2-11-1998 and 3-11-1998. Vide Annexure R-4/2 it was directed that there shall no sittings from 16-11-1998 to 20-11-1998 as the President would be on leave during this period. It is contended by respondents No. 4 and 5 that Vide Annexure R-4/3, R-4/4 and R-4/5 they protested against the closure of the Forum by the President of the District Forum. The respondents No. 4 and 5 further filed documents (Annexure R-4/7 to R-4/17). A perusal of Annexure R-4/7 shows that cases were listed for 30-10-1998 under four categories: (i) preliminary hearing; (ii) reply and filing of documents (iii) for arguments and (iv) u/s 27. Annexures R-4/7 to R-4/15 go to show that various cases were listed amongst which there were old cases, and were required to be adjourned because the sittings were not held and the District Forum could not function at all. Annexures R-4/16 and R-4/17 allege that even the files are not being placed before them (the members) and this Act of closure whereby the District Forum is not being allowed to function, is illegal and contrary to law. In view of the allegations made, the President of the District Forum was joined as party-respondent No. 6. He has filed separate return raising a plea that the petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in the matter of administrative decisions taken by respondent No. 6, is not maintainable. In view of the allegations made, the President of the District Forum was joined as party-respondent No. 6. He has filed separate return raising a plea that the petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in the matter of administrative decisions taken by respondent No. 6, is not maintainable. In para 2 it is stated that the subject matter of the petition regarding functioning and non-functioning of the District Forum because of the absence of the Chairman, is purely administrative function and, as such, no interference is called for, and the High Court cannot sit in appeal or judgment over the administrative decisions of the Chairman, as administrative order is not open to scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in extra-ordinary cases where the order is shown to be mala fide. In para 3 the respondent No. 6 relying on the amended provisions of section 18-A of the Act, contended that the duties of the President of the District Forum shall be performed by such person who is qualified to be appointed as President of the District Forum. It is contended that after insertion of section 18-A by the Amendment Act of 1991 with effect from 15-6-1991. Rule 3(7) of the M.P. Consumer Protection Rules 1991 became contradictory to the express provisions made in the Act. In para 4 it is contended that the respondent No. 6 had to look after the Forum at different places. In para 4 reliance has been placed on Sub-section (2) of section 24-B to contend that the administrative control over the District Forum is that of the State Commission, and whatever grievances the petitioner have, they shall have to be addressed to the State Commission which would issue the guidelines. It is further stated that the President and the members of the District Forum are directly under the administrative control and subordination of the State Commission in the matter of convening of the sittings of the District Forum. It is contended that the matter whether the members alone can convene the sittings of the District Forum during the continuous absence of the President for any reason, is to be decided exclusively by the Chairman of the State Commission in the same manner as the High Court exercises administrative control over the Subordinate Courts. It is contended that the matter whether the members alone can convene the sittings of the District Forum during the continuous absence of the President for any reason, is to be decided exclusively by the Chairman of the State Commission in the same manner as the High Court exercises administrative control over the Subordinate Courts. It is stated that the decision of the Apex Court in Gulzarilal Agrawal vs. The Accounts Officer (supra) relates to the judicial order passed by the members of the State Commission during the absence of its Chairman due to his retirement, and does not relate to an administrative order, and it was held that the order passed by the member in the absence of the President was protected u/s 29-A of the Act. The respondent No. 6 has further referred to the provisions of Sub-section (2-A) of section 14 of the Act to contend that the cases heard and decided must be signed by the President and the member or members, and the President cannot be compelled to sign the orders in the cases which are heard and decided in his absence, and the order which is not signed by the President is no order in the eye of law and is not enforceable. The respondent No. 3 is the District Forum. Respondent No. 6, as stated earlier, is impleaded in his personal capacity as President of the District Forum. Respondent No. 3 has filed a comparative chart which goes to show that 745 cases were pending as on 31-12-1996, 812 cases on 31-12-1997 and 636 cases as on 31-12-1998. The first question raised by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 is regarding the maintainability of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has pointed out that his case was dismissed, he preferred an appeal, and on appeal his case was remanded and is not being heard on one count or the other. Petitioner has pointed out that his case was dismissed, he preferred an appeal, and on appeal his case was remanded and is not being heard on one count or the other. He has demonstrated (and which fact has been admitted by all the parties) that whenever the President goes on leave or otherwise, the functioning of the Forum itself is closed and no sitting takes place even on the dates when the cause lists are published and such dates are not one or two but many as is apparent and borne out from the documents filed by the petitioner and by respondents No. 4 and 5. The petition even otherwise raises a question of public importance regarding the aims and objects of the Act. The Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, has considered the scope of powers of judicial interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. So far as Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. Judicial discipline, propriety, decorum and respect for each other are required to be maintained by the members. In this connection it is useful to refer the case of Mamleshwar Prasad and Another Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) through L. Rs., paras 6 and 7. This Court has also dealt with this aspect in Shankarlal vs. D.N. Joshi, 1986 JU 635 (DB). So far as the power of the High Courts are concerned regarding superintendence and control as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution, they have been elaborately propounded by the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, , and in this view of the matter it is not only the function but also the duty of this Court to supervise and control and further to ensure that judicial discipline and propriety are maintained by Courts and Tribunals working within its control and jurisdiction, and the objection raised on that ground is not sustainable. The Act is a beneficial statute specially enacted to safeguard and preserve the interests of the consumers. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. The Act is a beneficial statute specially enacted to safeguard and preserve the interests of the consumers. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, the Supreme Court observed: The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment. It is pertinent to note that the Act was first amended by the Amendment Act of 1991 and came into force with effect from 15-6-1991. As per the amended provision every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum. The other purpose of the amendment of 1991 was that merely because of vacancies or defects in appointment the order passed by the District Forum would not be invalidated. The Act was further amended in 1993 (with effect from 18-6-1993) which replaced the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 1993 with some modification. The amended provisions are only prospective in nature. Section 9 of the Act deals with establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. Clause (a) of section 9 is relevant which is quoted below:-- 9. There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, the following agencies, namely-- (a) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the "District Forum" established by the State Government in each District of the State by notification: Provided that the State Government may, if it deems fit, establish more than one District Forum in a District. (b) *** *** *** (c) *** *** *** It may be noted that prior to 1993 amendments the District Forums wire required to be established by the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government. But now the words 'with the prior approval of the Central Government' have been omitted with a view to avoid unnecessary delay in setting up the District Forums. But now the words 'with the prior approval of the Central Government' have been omitted with a view to avoid unnecessary delay in setting up the District Forums. Thus, the constitution and setting up of the District Forum is now under the exclusive domain of the State Government. Sometimes, a single District Forum may be too inadequate to deal with the complaints of consumers of metropolitan cities or large districts. To remove this difficulty, the Amendment Act, 1993 has inserted a proviso under Clause (a) of section 9 of the Act, according to which the State Government may, if it deems fit, establish more than one District Forum in a district. The District Forum is the fulcrum of the entire Consumer Disputes Redressal Machinery because a large number of cases are to be covered within the jurisdiction of the District Forums. The working of the State Commission and the National Commission will remain diluted unless the District Forums are set up in all the Districts as envisaged in the Act. These delays and defaults on the part of the State Government focussed the attention of the Supreme Court in a Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1989) II Scale 541, where the Court issued directions that all States and Union Territories would constitute all the District Forums and the State Commissions within six weeks. The Supreme Court, again in Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1993) 1 CPR 211 (SC) observed that 'to say the least the emerging scenario is far too depressing betraying a total lack of willingness on the part of the most of the States to seriously implement one of the most benevolent legislations'. It is such indifference which renders a well meaning legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation ineffective. The Court gave the following directions:-- (i) Whenever a sitting District Judge is functioning as the President of District Forum, if the workload exceeds the minimum monthly load of 150 cases Consistently for a six months period, the High Court will convey the same to the State Government/U.T. administration which will within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the communication appoint a regular independent District Forum as envisaged by section 9 of the Act. After the expiry of the said six months period, the High Court will be free to terminate the ad hoc stop-gap arrangement of loaning the services of a sitting District Judge to work as the President of the District Forum under intimation to the State Government/U.T. administration and it will then be the responsibility of the latter to make provision for carrying out the purposes of the Act. (ii) In districts where the workload does not exceed the minimum fixed by the Court's order dated August 5, 1991, the ad hoc arrangement may continue for one year from today during which period the State Government/U.T. administration will take steps to constitute an independent District Forum for each district or if the Central Government permits one such Forum for 2-3 districts clubbed together. After the expiry of the period of one year from today, the concerned High Courts will be free to terminate the ad hoc stop gap arrangement of loaning the services of sitting District Judge to work as President of the District Forum in which case it will be the responsibility of the State Government/U.T. administration to make provision for carrying out the purposes of the Act. (iii) A copy of this order will be sent to the Chief Secretary of each State Government/U.T. administration to take steps to meet with its statutory obligations under the Act within the above time-frame with a view to ensuring that the interest of the consumers is fully protected. Needless to point out that more than sufficient time has been allowed to the State Government/U. Ts. to fulfil their statutory obligation of setting up a District Forum in every district as envisaged by section 9 of the Act and the concerned Government will now be alive to its responsibility to do so within the time extended hereby. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that our High Court has framed rules in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, called the M.P. High Court Superintendence of Tribunals Rules 1998 which are published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 6-7-1998 in Notification No. F. 17(E) 47-96- XXI-B (1) dated 24th August 1998. Counsel referred to Rule 3 of these Rules which is relevant and quoted below:-- 3. Counsel referred to Rule 3 of these Rules which is relevant and quoted below:-- 3. Submission of returns by the Tribunals.-- Every Tribunal shall submit to the High Court return in such forms as may be prescribed by the High Court and furnish such other particulars as may be required by the High Court by special or general order, from time to time, in relation to its functioning. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was an alarming situation in that the functioning of the District Forum was stopped by frequent absence of respondent No. 6 and by ordering by him that in his absence there shall be no sittings of the District Forum, it is a fit case for indulgence by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence and control as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution to maintain judicial discipline and propriety. The District Forum has to function in accordance with the Act and the Rules and if its function has been stopped by the President by ordering that in his absence there shall be no sittings, then in our opinion, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution this Court has the jurisdiction to step in to maintain judicial discipline and propriety, and in that view, the objection raised that this petition is not maintainable, has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The other contention raised by respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 is that t le President is a Judicial Officer of the rank of H.J.S. and if he is not functioning no petition like the present one can be entertained and maintainable. The contention is devoid of merit. If a Tribunal within the jurisdiction of this Court is not functioning it is the duty of this Court to see that it functions and for that the powers of superintendence under Article 227 are available. This petition is against the District Forum and not against any judicial officer. To say that this Bench of the High Court has no jurisdiction is absolutely without any basis. Nothing has been pointed out that the jurisdiction of this Bench is taken away. In fact, if any District Forum/Tribunal is not functioning within the jurisdiction of this Bench, it is this Bench which has the jurisdiction. Composition of the District Forum is made u/s 10 of the Act, which is quoted below:-- 10(1). Nothing has been pointed out that the jurisdiction of this Bench is taken away. In fact, if any District Forum/Tribunal is not functioning within the jurisdiction of this Bench, it is this Bench which has the jurisdiction. Composition of the District Forum is made u/s 10 of the Act, which is quoted below:-- 10(1). Each District Forum shall consist of-- (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President; (b) two other members, who shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration, one of whom shall be a woman. (1-A) Every appointment under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the following, namely -- (i) the President of the State Commission Chairman. (ii) Secretary, Law Department of the State Member. (iii) Secretary incharge of the Department Member dealing with consumer affairs in the State. (2) *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** Clause (jj) of Sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act has been inserted by the Amendment Act of 1993 with effect from 18-6-1993. This Clause is relevant and reads:-- (jj) 'member' includes the President and a member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be. According to the definition, 'member' includes the President and member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be. The definition has been inserted with a view to clarify that the President of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum is also a member of that Commission/Forum. According to the definition, 'member' includes the President and member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be. The definition has been inserted with a view to clarify that the President of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum is also a member of that Commission/Forum. Sections 2(l)(jj), 14(2), 14(2-A) and 29-A of the Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Gulzarilal Agrawal vs. The Accounts Officer, 111 (1996) CPJ 12(SC), and the Supreme Court after quoting the relevant provisions, namely, sections 2(1 )(jj), 9, 14(2), 14(2-A), 18, 29-A and 30(2) of the Act and also quoting the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 30(2) of the Act, known as the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987, especially sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the Rules held in para 17 as under:-- 17. After giving careful thought to the rival contentions raised before us, we are of the considered opinion that relevant provisions which we have quoted hereinabove, will have to be construed harmoniously to promote the cause of the consumers under the Act. As indicated earlier, the definition of member includes the President and a Member of a District Forum/State Commission. It is true that Sub-section (2) of section 14 read with section 18 require that every proceeding referred to under Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum/State Commission and at least one member thereof sitting together. Section 2A is consequential in the sense that every order made by the State Commission under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. The procedure applicable to the District Forum is made applicable to the State Commission vide section 18 with such modifications as may be necessary. Section 2A is consequential in the sense that every order made by the State Commission under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. The procedure applicable to the District Forum is made applicable to the State Commission vide section 18 with such modifications as may be necessary. Plain reading of Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 14 may support the view taken by the National Commission but if these provisions are read with section 29A of the Act and sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 it would be quite clear that it could never be the intention of Legislature to stall or render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of the President either having not been appointed in time due to some valid reasons or if the President is on leave due to certain reasons beyond his control. Subsections (2) and (2A) of section 14 and section 18A of the Act were brought into force with effect from 18-6-1993 whereas section 29A was made applicable from 15-6-1991. The Rules of 1987 were brought into force immediately. The Complaint before the District Forum by the appellant was filed on 14-10-1993. Therefore all these amended provisions were very much brought into force when the complaint was filed. Sub-section (2) of section 14 is a presumptuous provision where the President of the State Commission is functional" but it would not be correct to say that if the President of the State Commission is non-functional because of one or the other reason, the State Commission would stop its functioning and wait till the President is appointed. In order to avoid such a situation, the State Government has framed the rules and sub-rules (9) and (10) quoted hereinabove unmistakably provide answer to such a situation as in the present case. The only harmonious construction that could be given to Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 14 read with sub-rules (9) and (10) is that as and when the President of the State Commission is functional, he along with at least one Member sitting together shall conduct the proceeding but where the President being non-functional, sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 will govern the proceedings. Sub-rule provides that where any such vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the State Commission, the senior-most (in order of appointment) Member holding office for the time being, shall discharge the function of the President until a person is appointed to fill such vacancy. This sub-rule is made with a view to make the State Commission functional in the absence of the President and not to allow the State Commission to render non-functional for want of the President. It is well settled that every provision in the Act needs to be construed harmoniously with a view to promote the object and spirit of the Act, but while doing so no violence would be done to the plain language used in the section. It is this principle that needs to be made applicable while construing the provision of Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 14 read with sub-rules (9) and (10). The Supreme Court further held in para 18: 18. The West Bengal Government has framed the Rules in the year 1987 and the object of sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 appears to us to keep the State Commission functional in the absence of the President. From the impugned order it appears that the attention of the National Commission was not drawn to sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule It also appears from the record that the validity of sub-rules (9) and of Rule 6 was never challenged. It is made clear that the view which we have taken in this appeal is on the premise that there is no challenge to the validity of the Rules and they hold the field. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a joint return and taken a categorical stand that sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (for short, the 'Rules') have become redundant after substitution of section 14(2) and (2A) and insertion of section 18A of the Act by the Amendment Act of 1991. A plea was also taken that sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 are ultra vires. It is, therefore, necessary to see the relevant provisions of the Rules. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act, made the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules with which we are concerned, reads as under:-- 3. It is, therefore, necessary to see the relevant provisions of the Rules. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act, made the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules with which we are concerned, reads as under:-- 3. Salaries and other allowances and terms and conditions of the President and Members of the District Forum. -- (1) The President of the District Forum shall receive the salary of the Judge of a District Court if appointed on whole-time basis or an honorarium of Rs. 150/- per day if appointed on part-time basis. Other members if sitting on whole-time basis, shall receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month and, if sitting on part-time basis, a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 100/- per day for the sitting. (2) The President and the Members of the District Forum shall be entitled for such travelling allowance and daily allowance of official tour as are admissible to Grade 1 Officer of the State Government. (3) *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** (5) *** *** *** (6) *** *** *** (7) Where any vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the District Forum, the senior-most (in order of appointment) member of the District Forum, holding office for the time being, shall discharge the functions of the President until a person appointed to fill such vacancy assumes the office of the President of the District Forum. (8) When the President of the District Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause the senior-most (in order of appointment) Member of the District Forum shall discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions. (9) *** *** *** 19-20. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with place of sitting and other matters relating to District Forum. Sub-Rules (7), (8), (9) and (10) are relevant and are quoted below. (7) Where the opposite party admits the allegation made by the complainant, the District Forum shall decide the complaint on the basis of the merit of the case and documents presented before it. Sub-Rules (7), (8), (9) and (10) are relevant and are quoted below. (7) Where the opposite party admits the allegation made by the complainant, the District Forum shall decide the complaint on the basis of the merit of the case and documents presented before it. (8) If during the proceedings conducted u/s 13, District Forum fixes a date for hearing of the parties, it shall be obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or its authorised agent to appear before the District Forum on such date of hearing or any other date to which hearing could be adjourned. Where the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the District Forum on such day the District Forum in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. Where the opposite party or its authorised agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum may decide the complaint ex parte. (9) While proceeding under Sub-rule (8) the District Forum may, on such terms as it may think fit and at any stage, adjourn the hearing of the complaint but not more than one adjournment shall ordinarily be given and the complaint should be decided within 90 days from the date of notice received by the opposite party where complaint does not require analysis or testing of the goods and within 150 days if it requires analysis or testing of the goods. (10) Orders of the District Forum shall be signed and dated by the Members of the District Forum constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge. Section 11 deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum, while section 12 of the Act deals with the manner in which a complaint is to be made. Section 13 of the Act is relevant and is quoted below :-- 13.(1) The District Forum on receipt of complaint if it relates to any goods -- (a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint direct him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum; (b) where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under Clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained. in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in Clauses (c) to (g); (c) Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty- five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum. (d) before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under Clause (c) the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question; (e) the District Forum shall remit the amount deposited to its credit under Clause (d) to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out the analysis or test mentioned in Clause (c) and on receipt of the report from the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall forward a copy of the report along with such remarks as the District Forum may feel appropriate to the opposite party; (f) if any of the parties disputes the correctness of the findings of the appropriate laboratory or disputes the correctness of the methods of analysis or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall require the opposite party or the complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory. (g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under Clause (f) and issue an appropriate order u/s 14. (2) The District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it u/s 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in Sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, (a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum; (b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under Clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute -- (i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or (ii) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum. (3) No proceeding complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. (3) No proceeding complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. (4) For purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the CPC 1908 ( 5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely -- (i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any Defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) Every proceeding before the District forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon. Section 14 of the Act on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 reads as under:-- 14. Section 14 of the Act on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 reads as under:-- 14. (1) If after the proceeding conducted u/s 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely -- (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party; (e) to remove the defects or deficiencies in the services in question; (f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat it; (g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale; (h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered to sale; (i) to provide for adequate costs to parties. (2) Every proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together; Provided that where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct the proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall conduct such proceeding de novo. (2A) Every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceedings; Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum. (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sitting and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. The new Sub-section (2) provides that every proceeding referred to in section 14(1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together. Moreover, where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct such proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member have to conduct such proceeding de novo. The amended section requires that a case must be heard and disposed of by at least two members of the District Forum, one of them has to be the President. As observed by the Supreme Court in Gulzarilal Agrawal's case (supra) to promote the cause of the consumers the provisions of the Act have to be construed harmoniously. The definition of member includes the President and a member of the District Forum. The Supreme Court held that if the provisions under Sub-section (2) and (2A) of section 14 are read with Section 29A of the Act and sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, it would be quite clear that it could never be the intention of the Legislature to stall or render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of the President. The Supreme Court further held that Sub-section (2) of section 14 is a presumptuous provision where the President of the State Commission is functional but it would not be correct to say that if the President of the State Commission is non-functional because of one or the other reason, the Commission would stop its functioning and wait till the President comes. In order to avoid such a situation, there are provisions in sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Now, as regards the contention that sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules are redundant and ultra vires, it is necessary to see as to what is meant by the words 'redundant' and ultra vires. ' As per the Oxford Large Print Dictionary (1993 Edition) the word 'redundant' means superfluous. Now, as regards the contention that sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules are redundant and ultra vires, it is necessary to see as to what is meant by the words 'redundant' and ultra vires. ' As per the Oxford Large Print Dictionary (1993 Edition) the word 'redundant' means superfluous. As per the law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar the word 'ultra vires' means "an act performed without any authority to act on subject. It means that something has been done by a person or body of persons which was beyond powers or lack of power. An Act is said to be ultra vires when it is an excess of the power of the person or authority doing it." If the State feels that sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules are redundant and ultra vires, it is within the competence of the State to declare as such and it is duty bound to adopt remedial measures. No declaration as such by the Court is required, and realising this the Counsel for the State did not press this point any further. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987 are practically identical to sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules. It is said that for the State of Madhya Pradesh the same rules as contained in Rule 6 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987, are contained in Rule 6 of the Rules. So far as the aspect about functioning of the District Forum is concerned, as mentioned hereinabove, section 13 of the Act lays down the procedure to be adopted by the District Forum on receipt of complaint. A perusal of section 13 (reproduced in para 21 hereinabove) would show that the functioning of the District Forum is manifold - receipt of complaint, scrutiny, issuance of notice, calling upon the other side to file reply to the complaint where the allegations are disputed and to proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in that section. The cause list produced itself shows that before the District Forum the cases were listed under four heads, namely, preliminary hearing, reply, arguments and penalty u/s 27. To take up and hear the cases so fixed is the job of the District Forum. The cause list produced itself shows that before the District Forum the cases were listed under four heads, namely, preliminary hearing, reply, arguments and penalty u/s 27. To take up and hear the cases so fixed is the job of the District Forum. Since the member includes the President, under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 when the President of the District Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the senior-most (in order of appointment) member of the District Forum has to discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions. As held by the Apex Court, this Sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 is made with a view to make the District Forum functional in the absence of the President and not to render it non-functional for want of the President. The aims and object of the Act, especially, the amended provisions of the Act which have been brought into force from 15-6-1991 and 18-6-1993 respectively are for speedy disposal of the consumer disputes, and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gulzarilal Agrawals' case (supra) and the anxiety of the Legislature that the District Forum should decide the disputes expeditiously within 90 days or within 150 days, as the case may be, in the opinion of this Court, the orders passed by Shri K.K. Bharadwaj, President of the District Forum whereby the functioning of the District Forum was totally closed, were illegal and unjust. In our opinion, causing hindrance/ obstruction in the functioning of the District Forum was not called for. The District Forum has to function, and any act of any person, especially that of the President to stop the functioning in the manner in which it has been done, is not justified and certainly not in the interest of the consumers for whose protection the Legislature has enacted the Act and created the District Forum for speedy redressal of their grievance. The petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the District Forum shall be allowed to function in accordance with law without any obstruction or hindrance by respondent No. 6 or any other person or authority. The petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the District Forum shall be allowed to function in accordance with law without any obstruction or hindrance by respondent No. 6 or any other person or authority. Before parting with, it may be stated that for the smooth and efficient functioning of the District Forum the respondent No. 1 may at the earliest, if so desired, frame Rules u/s 30(2) of the Act as amended upto date. The respondent No. 2 may also, if so desired, issue such instructions as are permissible u/s 24-B keeping in view the aims and object enshrined under the Act for the smooth functioning of the Forum. No order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed