Judgment :- In all these cases the relief prayed for is one and the same, accordingly they are being disposed of by the following common order. The petitioner in each case prays for issuance of writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent viz., District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Madurai from entertaining, hearing and disposing of C.P. Nos. 81, 88 and 89 of 1991 filed by the second respondent in each of the writ petition under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The very same issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das. The following conclusion of their Lordships is relevant, they are, "The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word "consumer" is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer. A fortiori, an application for allotment of shares cannot constitute goods. In other words, before allotment of shares whether the applicant for such shares could be called a consumer ? In CIT v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. While defining shares, this Court observed". A share is not a sum of money, it represents an interest measured by a sum of money and made up of diverse rights contained in the contract evidenced by the articles of association of the Company "Therefore, it is after allotment, rights may arise as per the contract (Articles of Association of Company). But certainly not before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods. The issue was yet to open on 27-4-1993. There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. But certainly not before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods. The issue was yet to open on 27-4-1993. There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the preexistence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act." The conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction with reference to the claim made by the second respondent in all these writ petitions. Consequently, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, all the wilt petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPS. are closed.