1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

“(A) Be pleased to quash and set aside notice dated 4.11.11 passed below in Consumer Complaint Case No.595 of 2011 and consumer complaint no.595 of 2011 by Hon'ble District Vadodara Consumer Forum.

(B) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this Petition, be pleased to stay the proceedings of Consumer Complaint Case No.595 of 2011 pending on the file of Hon'ble District Vadodara Consumer Forum.

(C) Costs of this Petition.

(D) Any other relief which Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts of the case.”

2. The petitioner is a Partnership Firm by the name and style of Heena Tours and Travels. Although the factual matrix of the case has not been set out in detail in the petition, it can be discerned from the material on record that respondents Nos.1 and 2, with their families, booked a tour to Bhutan through the petitioner-Firm. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the said respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (“the Forum” for short), against the petitioner, being Complaint Case No.595 of 2011. A notice dated 04.11.2011 under Section 13(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” for short), came to be issued to the petitioner, informing that a complaint has been filed against it and calling upon it to appear before the Forum for hearing on 30.11.2011, at 11:30 am. It is this notice that has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, as the Complaint could not have been filed before the Forum at Vadodara, as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.

3. Mr.Masoom K.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner-Firm has several branches in various States but does not have a branch at Vadodara, where the complaint is filed. The cause of action has not arisen at Vadodara but the contract was concluded at Ahmedabad. Referring to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, it is submitted that the Forum at Vadodara suffers from an inherent lack of jurisdiction, therefore it could not have issued the impugned notice. It is further urged that the complaint does not reveal how the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum at Vadodara is attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed the complaint at Vadodara just to harass the petitioner and such tactics ought to be prevented by this Court, otherwise complaints will be filed all over the country. It is emphatically argued that the present is a fit case for the interference of this Court, and to lay down authoritative guidelines on the aspect of jurisdiction, so that frivolous complaints are not filed at wrong forums in future, and harassment to litigants is avoided. It is contended that the petitioner would choose to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court instead of approaching the Forum, as the impugned notice issued by the Forum is without jurisdiction.

4. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

(a) The Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Union of India and others – AIR 1993 Calcutta 4

(b) Food Corporation of India v. District Consumer Forum – 1998-CC-91-518

(c) Harbanslal Sahnia And Another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Others – (2003)2 SCC 107

(d) Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Limited – (2010)1 SCC 135

5. On the strength of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petition be entertained and the prayers made by the petitioner be granted.

6. Before dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.

7. Section 11 of the Act defines the jurisdiction of the District Forum and reads thus:

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum – (1) Subject to the other