Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38.5. Reference has been made to Sections 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21 & 24 of the CPA, 2019 to submit that the impugned guidelines have been issued under Section 18 of the act without affording a preliminary hearing. It is, however, admitted that there was a stakeholder consultation prior to the issuance of the guidelines.

38.6. Reference is made to Section 20 of the CPA, 2019 to argue that in cases wherein the CCPA is of the opinion that any trade practice is unfair or prejudicial to consumer interest, a proper hearing must be given by the said Authority, which would then be appealable to the National Commission under Section 24 of the CPA, 2019. The CCPA, in the present case, has not followed this process and thus there is violation of the principles of natural justice.

62. The CCPA is, thus, not merely a recommendatory or advisory body. Under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019, it has the power to issue guidelines and such guidelines ought to be for preventing unfair trade practices and for protecting consumers' interests. If such guidelines are not followed, the CCPA can direct an enquiry or an investigation by the concerned District Collector under Section 19 of the CPA, 2019 and after obtaining a report thereto it can issue notice to the concerned service provider and after hearing the service provider, it can even direct discontinuation of the said practice under Section 20 of the CPA, 2019. Failing to comply with the direction passed by the CCPA under Section 20 of the act, attracts punishment as outlined under Section 88 of the CPA, 2019.

Refer the matter for investigation by the Director General/District Collector or any Regulator under Section 19 of the CPA, 2019 On the basis of investigation, if the CCPA is satisfied that there is a violation of consumer right, it can pass directions under Section 20 of the CPA, 2019 Non-compliance of directions passed by the CCPA under Section 20 of the CPA, 2019-warrants a punishment as specified under Section 88 of the CPA, 2019

"84. In the present case, it is not the government, but private entities like Amway, Oriflame and Modicare, which are trying to seek enforcement of the DSGs. In fact, they are seeking to enforce guidelines against third parties and not against those who might be bound by the DSGs, as and when it becomes law. Merely because the DSGs are notified in the Gazette, they do not attain the status of ' law' within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution. The source of the power to frame such guidelines is traceable only to the CPA. With the CPA, 2019 itself not having been notified, these draft guidelines could not have attained the character of 'binding Rules' under the CPA, 2019, or for that matter, even under the CPA, 1986. When clearly even the draft guidelines mentioned the Act to be the CPA, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to accept the plea that they could be sourced to Articles 73 or 77 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there was no occasion to apply the decision in Ram Jawaya Kapoor (supra)."