Binty vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner's grievances. The Court cannot assume the role of the legislature by converting a proposed Bill into law or directing the utilization of funds. The decision on how such amounts are to be utilized lies with the Parliament or the Executive, not the courts, especially when there is no claim that the respondents are acting contrary to any statutory mandate. The Court reiterated the principle of separation of powers, stating that courts cannot create or enforce laws or policies. The judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. was found to be inapplicable as it pertained to specific refund categories and was not alleged to have been violated. The Court noted that a Consumer Welfare Fund already exists under Section 57 of the CGST Act, 2017, with established rules and guidelines for financial assistance. The Court found no basis for the petitioner's assumption that funds held by banks, insurance companies, etc., were in jeopardy, as these entities are governed by their own regulations. The Court also stated it could not direct refunds to unidentifiable consumers and that the prayer for donating funds to Safdarjung Hospital lacked legal basis for preferential treatment. The Court noted that a previous similar petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed for being deficient. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merit.

Facts

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation against eighty respondents, primarily seeking to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into rules and to transfer unclaimed amounts of unidentifiable consumers lying with various entities to the Consumer Welfare Fund or a Suspense Account. The petitioner also sought the disbursement of Rs. 5 crores from these funds to senior resident doctors of Safdarjung Hospital and an additional donation of Rs. 5 crores to the hospital to combat coronavirus. The petitioner argued that the respondents should not appropriate these funds due to a lack of specific legislation, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and citing constitutional provisions. The respondents included the Union of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the appropriate government to convert the Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into the Consumer Welfare Rules, 2010, and to transfer unclaimed consumer amounts to a Consumer Welfare Fund or Suspense Account, thereby assuming the role of the legislature? (Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents cannot appropriate unclaimed or unrefunded amounts belonging to unidentifiable customers due to the absence of specific legislation. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and argued that a legislative void necessitates judicial intervention. The petitioner also cited various constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 19, and 21, and the preamble of the Constitution to emphasize the importance of the issue. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's reasoning indicates that the respondents' position, implicitly, was that the Court should not legislate or direct policy matters.