JUDGMENT : Dr. J.N. Dubey, J.- Petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of case no.40 of 1994 pending before the respondent no.2, the District Consumer Protection Forum, Sahebganj. 2. It appears that the respondent no.3. a Member of Bihar Administrative Service, filed a complaint to the respondent no.2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') for directing the petitioners to pay him Transfer Travelling Allowance, Leave Travelling Allowance, Travelling Allowance and damages etc. for the period he worked on deputation with them. The respondent no.2 issued notice to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned JC to AAG III and perused the record. Neither anyone has appeared on behalf of the respondents nor any counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent no.3 was not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Act and as such, he had no right to file complaint under section 12 of the Act. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. Under Section 12 of the Act a complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided may be filed with a District Forum by the consumer to whom such good are sold or delivered or such service provided; any recognised consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a member of such association or not; or the Central or the State Government. Now it has to be seen whether the respondent no.3 is a consumer and the complaint filed by him before the respondent no.2 is a complaint within the meaning of the Act. Clause (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2, which contain definition of complaint and consumer, are quoted below: (c) "complain" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that— (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damages. Clause (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2, which contain definition of complaint and consumer, are quoted below: (c) "complain" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that— (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damages. (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act; (d) "consumer" means any person who(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does. not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person." A plain reading of the definitions of 'complaint' and 'consumer' would show that neither the respondent no.3 is a consumer nor complaint filed by him before the respondent no.2 is a complaint within the meaning of the Act. 6. Since the respondent no.3 is not a consumer and the complaint filed by him is not a complaint within the meaning of the Act, the respondent no.2 was not legally justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Since the respondent no.3 is not a consumer and the complaint filed by him is not a complaint within the meaning of the Act, the respondent no.2 was not legally justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioners. Entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The entire proceedings of case no. 40 of 1994 pending before the respondent no.2, District Consumer Protection Forum. Sahebganj, are quashed. No ORDER :as to costs.