- Department of Commercial Supplies and Consumer Protection monitored 11 commercial firms on May 17. Instructed 6 out of 11 commercial firms to appear in the department within 3 days.

- The department's team also monitored 11 commercial firms on May 16. The three firms were asked to appear in the department within 3 days with documents.

- The monitoring team monitored 15 firms on May 15. Out of them, 8 firms have been asked to attend the department within 3 days with business related documents.

- The monitoring team monitored 9 firms on May 14. Six of the monitored firms have been asked to attend the department.

The mentioned examples show the market monitoring being done by the Department of Commerce and the instructions given by it. During the monitoring, some quality is seen in every firm. But the situation of the fine is negligible. The firm that has met the criteria has only been instructed to attend the department.

The details of the monitoring carried out by the department from July 1, 2081 to May 3, 2082 also show this. During this period, the department has monitored 3 thousand 34 firms. Among them, 360 firms have been given financial penalties and 1400 firms have been given other instructions. 1 thousand 124 firms have been asked to appear in the department with documents.

The Consumer Protection Act 2075 has empowered the inspection officer to take action at the monitoring site. Instead of issuing immediate fines or instructions to improve, the monitoring team calls the department. Consumer rights activists say that this has raised doubts about the working style of the monitoring team. Madhav Timalsina, president of the Consumer Rights Research Forum, said that although the intentions of the staff involved in monitoring were clear, doubts had arisen in the public mind.

The Act has given the authority to the inspection officer to impose fines on firms that do not post price lists, business registration, renewal, relabeling, or not. It is also necessary to make the market clean," said President Timalsina. "The law has given clear authority so the inspector should take action in the field. Although the intention was good when calling the department, a negative message has been sent to the general public. Suspicions of collusion and bargaining have also arisen. Section 33 (1) of the

Act has the right to search immediately if unsafe, adverse, harmful or substandard goods are being produced, sold, distributed, services are provided or any work is done against the law. The person who commits such acts has the right to arrest and detain him for up to 7 days for investigation with the permission of the investigating officer. Subsection (4) of Section 33 of the

Act says that if the test list is not found to be in accordance with the list, the sale and distribution of the goods can be stopped and fined immediately. According to section 39, if there is no labelling, if the label mentions false things, if the producer, importer, transporter and seller do not fulfill their obligations, if they do not issue the bill, they can be fined from 5 thousand to 3 lakh rupees according to the offence. But the monitoring team calls most of the firms to the department.

President of Consumer Awareness Campaign Nepal Krishna Prasad Bhandari (Marseille) also claimed that it was wrong to call the department. "The businessmen are organized, but the monitoring team is ruthless and has not been able to use the law," said Bhandari, "The inspection officer should be fined according to the law." But when monitoring and then calling the department, it did not send a good message. This has become a monitoring phenomenon. According to

monitoring details, consumers have been cheated in all sectors including food items, clothing, hotels, cosmetic sector, electronic business (online buying and selling). The employees say that when they try to take action against the big business houses, there is pressure from the higher authorities. For this reason, the employees say that not all firms found to be in good shape could be fined.