JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.10.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Roshanabad Haridwar, District Haridwar whereby not only complaint pertaining to the election of the Cane Development Union Laksar, District Haridwar was entertained but injunction was also issued against the Union. When matter was taken up for preliminary hearing on 13.11.2014, following order was passed. “Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents by register post AD in addition to normal mode of service returnable within two weeks. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by District Consumer Dispute Forum, Haridwar, whereby not only the complaint pertaining to the election of the Cane Co-operative Development Union, Laksar was entertained but also injunction was issued against the election. The action on the part of the District Consumer Dispute Forum is totally unwarranted, irresponsible and without jurisdiction. The Chairman, District Consumer Dispute Forum shall file his comments clarifying as to under what provision of law, he has entertained the complaint pertaining to the election of the Cane Co-operative Development Union and has issued injunction. Comments shall be sent within next ten days and shall be placed before me and Hon’ble the Chief Justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that meanwhile, operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stay. CLMA No. 12945 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.” 2. Pursuant to the order dated 13.11.2014, President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Haridwar has forwarded the comments dated 27.11.2014. It has been stated by the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that since counsel for the opposite party No. 2 therein sought time to file reply on the injunction application, therefore, election was directed to be stayed by the Forum. It is nowhere mentioned by the President of the Forum under what provision of law complaint was entertained pertaining to the election of the Cane Development Union and injunction / stay was granted staying the election. 3. I have perused the impugned order as well as comments forwarded by the President of the Forum. I have no hesitation to hold that action on the part of the President as well as the Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was not only irresponsible but was also unwarranted. 3. I have perused the impugned order as well as comments forwarded by the President of the Forum. I have no hesitation to hold that action on the part of the President as well as the Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was not only irresponsible but was also unwarranted. President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is a former District Judge while the member is the practicing Advocate. It seems that they have entertained the compliant and have passed the impugned order staying the election of Cane Development Union under the influence of the complainant / respondent No.1 herein who is also practicing Advocate at Haridwar. 4. The action on the part of the President as well as on the Member the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereby condemned and I have no hesitation to hold that they are not fit to hold high office of the Forum which they are holding at present. 5. Since, complaint was entertained by the Forum by exercising the jurisdiction not vested in the Forum and order impugned is without jurisdiction, therefore, complaint is dismissed and order impugned is quashed. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. 6. Let copy of this order be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to pass appropriate orders in the administrative side against the Member as well as Chairman of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.