The petitioner in this writ petition is the Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association represented by its Secretary. They are aggrieved by the action of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in entertaining a complaint filed by the Kerala Consumer Education Society, the 2nd respondent herein, complaining about the steep increase in prices of food articles in hotels and restaurants in Kerala and seeking appropriate directions to the Corporation, the District Collector and the District Supply Officer to regulate the prices of food articles in restaurants and hotels by appropriate classification of the hotels and fixing the prices of food articles to be sold in hotels and restaurants. Their contention is that Ext.P1 complaint is not maintainable at all under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They would submit that Ext.P1 complaint is not filed by a consumer or on behalf of a consumer or consumers who only can file an application before the CDRF. Secondly they would contend that the complaint is based on a newspaper report and a complaint based on a newspaper report is not maintainable. Thirdly they would contend that before entertaining a complaint, the CDRF is bound to consider whether the compliant is maintainable and entertaining of a complaint is not automatic. In support of that contention, they rely upon the decision of this Court in Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Consumer D.R. Commission [2006 (3) KLT 500]. They would further contend that the pricing of food articles in hotels and restaurants cannot be regulated by either the Government or the Corporation and it is the absolute discretion of the restaurants to fix the price of food articles sold by them, in the absence of any law authorising them to do so, which has been held so by this Court in Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 497]. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) to call for the records relating to Ext.P1 consumer complaint, C.C.No.156/2007 pending before the Trichur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and quash the same declaring that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue as the complaint does not fall within the purview of the 'complaint' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

(ii) to declare that the 1st respondent Forum cannot entertain and proceed with Exhibit P1 complaint which is in the nature of a public interest litigation representing an unascertainable number of so called consumers who take food from the hotels.

(iii) to declare that the 1st respondent Forum can function and entertain only within the statutory framed work of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and rules framed there under and as such no jurisdiction to entertain Exhibit P1 complaint."

2. None of the respondents have chosen to file any counter affidavit.

3. In the present day context, the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent has great relevance. The price of food articles is rising day-by-day. The common people is unable to cope up with the sudden increase of prices of food articles. The floating population in cities cannot but depend on hotels and restaurants for their food. They are helpless in the matter of pricing of food articles insofar as they are bound to pay whatever the owner of the hotel or restaurant demands as price for the food articles without relevance to the profit margin of the restaurant and hotel however low the production cost may be. In fact whenever the Government revises the pay of employees or the price of petroleum products or raw materials increases, prices of food articles are also revised disproportionately. In such a context, the 2nd respondent should be congratulated in taking up the case of the public.

4. But that does not mean that Ext.P1 complaint is legally maintainable. A complaint before the CDRF can be filed only in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act. Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down the manner in which a