Live
- ‘Get Set, Grow Summit 2024’ Focuses on Digital Detox for Families
- Stokes motivates his team to put in extra effort, says England pacer Potts
- From overcoming setbacks to leading India in U19 Women’s Asia Cup, Niki Prasad's amazing journey
- Driving Enterprise Security: Inside Venkata Reddy Thummala’s Leadership Journey
- Constitution debate: PM Modi hails 'Nari Shakti'; makes strong pitch for 'United Bharat’
- Abhijeet Bhardwaj: Revolutionizing Enterprise Analytics with Innovation and Expertise
- Bihar: Inquiry initiated against principal who went to buy veggies during school hours
- Press Sri Lankan Prez for release of Indian fishermen: TN Cong MP to EAM Jaishankar
- TN: DMK postpones executive meet due to heavy rains & Parliament session
- Porous silicon oxide electrodes can fix durability issues in batteries: Researchers
State consumer forum common to AP TS
State consumer forum common to AP TS. The PIL bench of the High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justice SV Bhatt were informed by the government of Telangana that the State Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act for the state of AP will also deal with matters arising from the state of Telangana.
hyderabad: The PIL bench of the High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justice SV Bhatt were informed by the government of Telangana that the State Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act for the state of AP will also deal with matters arising from the state of Telangana.
.jpg)
This is in light of the constant battles brewing between the states on jurisdiction and distribution of assets. The government informed the court that the Telangana government had by amendment included the Forum in the schedule or a joint court.
The information was given to the court in the course of the bench hearing a writ plea filed as a PIL by N Srinivas the President of the confederation of All Telangana Consumers Organisation (CATCO) complaining that the government had failed to properly constitute the forum.
He referred to an earlier undertaking to the court that it would be constituted within a given time-frame and even after consulting the Chief Justice it had failed to go ahead with its constitution.
