JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the complaint in CC.No.96/2019 on the file of 1st respondent against the petitioner. Common Order: 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the consumer complaints. The petitioner has been arrayed as one of the respondents before the 1st respondent, District Consumer Forum by the 3rd respondent in an action against the 4th respondent in the following cases:- S.No W.P.Nos C.C.No Complainant 1 W.P.(MD) No.21614 of 2019 C.C.No.96 of 2019 M.Muhammad Abubakar Siddik 2 W.P.(MD) No.21616 of 2019 C.C.No.108 of 2019 K.Sermakani 3 W.P.(MD) No.21621 of 2019 C.C.No.91 of 2019 M.Mydeen Pitchai 4 W.P.(MD) No.21622 of 2019 C.C.No.106 of 2019 K.Maheswaran 5 W.P.(MD) No.21627 of 2019 C.C.No.97 of 2019 D.Joseph 6 W.P.(MD) No.21628 of 2019 C.C.No.109 of 2019 K.Pulithurai 7 W.P.(MD) No.23500 of 2019 C.C.No.132 of 2019 P.Murugan 8 W.P.(MD) No.23501 of 2019 C.C.No.133 of 2019 S.Velu 9 W.P.(MD) No.23503 of 2019 C.C.No.134 of 2019 P.Palavesam 10 W.P.(MD) No.23505 of 2019 C.C.No.137 of 2019 P.Karuvelamuthu 11 W.P.(MD) No.23507 of 2019 C.C.No.142 of 2019 M.Mohammed Abubakar Siddik 12 W.P.(MD) No.23508 of 2019 C.C.No.135 of 2019 P.Ganapathy 13 W.P.(MD) No.23510 of 2019 C.C.No.219 of 2019 M.Esakkimuthu 14 W.P.(MD) No.23514 of 2019 C.C.No.159 of 2019 A.Kumar 15 W.P.(MD) No.23518 of 2019 C.C.No.139 of 2019 G.Muthukumar 16 W.P.(MD) No.23519 of 2019 C.C.No.141 of 2019 E.Appathurai 17 W.P.(MD) No.23521 of 2019 C.C.No.136 of 2019 L.Ranjith Kumar 18 W.P.(MD) No.23528 of 2019 C.C.No.138 of 2019 P.Lakshmanan 19 W.P.(MD) No.23531 of 2019 C.C.No.140 of 2019 M.Ganesan 20 W.P.(MD) No.23536 of 2019 C.C.No.187 of 2019 C.Maharaja 21 W.P.(MD) No.23537 of 2019 C.C.No.188 of 2019 D.Joseph 22 W.P.(MD) No.23543 of 2019 C.C.No.127 of 2019 C.Maharaja 23 W.P.(MD) No.23545 of 2019 C.C.No.129 of 2019 C.Maharaja 24 W.P.(MD) No.23547 of 2019 C.C.No.128 of 2019 D.Joseph 25 W.P.(MD) No.23550 of 2019 C.C.No.186 of 2019 C.Maharaja 26 W.P.(MD) No.23553 of 2019 C.C.No.171 of 2019 P.Venkatesan 2. There is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the complainant before the Consumer Forum and in this proceeding despite service of notice. The 3rd respondent had initiated proceedings before the Consumer Forum. There is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the complainant before the Consumer Forum and in this proceeding despite service of notice. The 3rd respondent had initiated proceedings before the Consumer Forum. In all these cases, the 3rd respondent alleged deficiency of services by the 4th respondent hotels in the respective writ petitions. 3. Though the writ petitions have been filed for a prohibition, it appears that appropriate remedy against the order of the Consumer Forum rejecting the request for deleting the name of the petitioner was available to the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as wide power has been vested with this Court in its power of Superintendence of all Court. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner. 4. The 1st respondent/District Consumer Forum ought to have examined the issue as to whether the petitioner herein was either a necessary party or the proper party in the consumer complaints filed for the alleged deficiency of service by the respective hotels (the 4th respondent in the respective writ petitions) in the complaints filed by the 3rd respondent in these writ petitions. Though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable to the proceeding before the Consumer Forum, nevertheless the principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, as far as joinder, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties are concerned, is to be followed in the proceeding before it. 5. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper party in the said proceeding. The 1st respondent Tribunal ought to have entertained the applications filed by the petitioner for deleting their name from the respective consumer complaints. If there was any complaint regarding the extra collection of tax by the hotels, it was open for the complainant (3rd respondent in the respective writ petitions) to file appropriate applications under Section 54 of the TNGST Act for refund of the excess tax, if any, that may have been cancelled. Clearly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was unnecessary. 6. Clearly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was unnecessary. 6. Considering the above, I am inclined to allow these writ petitions by directing the 1st respondent/District Consumer Forum to delete the name of the petitioner from the respective consumer complaints and pass appropriate orders in the complaints filed by the respective 3rd respondent in the respective consumer petitions before it. 7. These writ petitions stand allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.