This revision petition is directed against the order of the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short he State Commission dated 25.9.2012 in first appeal No.221/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant with a desire to pursue his studies with opposite party school collected the prospectus and applied for admission in PGPM/PGPIB programme 2009-2011. The complainant accordingly deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- by two separate demand drafts dated 18th March, 2009 and 24th April, 2009. The complainant, however, got admission offer from SDM Institution for Management Development, Mysore and he preferred to get admission in the said institute. The complainant, therefore contacted the petitioner opposite party over telephone to find out whether he would get the refund of the fees deposited by him and the opposite party authorities assured the refund on telephone and asked him to file written application in this regard. Accordingly, the complainant sent an email to the opposite party school on 16.5.2009 explaining his situation and requesting for the refund of the fee. Since the opposite party did not respond, another email for refund of fee was sent but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions but in vain. Claiming the refusal of the petitioner school to refund the fee as deficiency in service the respondent preferred consumer complaint in District Consumer Forum, 24 Pargana, Barasat. The opposite party resisted the complaint. In its written version opposite party denied all the material allegations made in the complaint. It was alleged in the written statement that it was made clear to the complainant that the money once paid against fee will not be refunded. The petitioner, therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record found the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission not being convinced with the appeal dismissed the same and directed as under: - hat the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed with certain modification. Accordingly, the Appellant is hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs.90,000/- minus Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent within 30 days from the date of this order and further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent towards litigation cost within a period of 30 days from this date, failing which the Respondent is at liberty to file an execution application under the provision of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are not sustainable for the reasons that they are against the law laid down by Honle Supreme Court. Expanding on the argument learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the judgment of the Honle Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.22532/2012 arisen out of the judgment of NCDRC in RP No. 605/2012 titled P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. and submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment the education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. Thus, in the matters of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Learned counsel has contended that on this count alone the Foras below ought to have dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that as per the terms and conditions of the offer letter for admission it is clear that tuition fee once deposited was not to be refunded under any circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the aforesaid clear stipulation the petitioner was justified in refusing to refund the money and the refusal cannot be taken as deficiency in service. We do not have benefit of the submissions of on behalf of the respondent because the respondent failed to put in appearance despite of service of notice through registered A.D. post and he was proceeded ex-parte. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. It is undisputed that pursuant to the application of the respondent complainant for admission in opposite party institute, the complainant vide letter dated 10.3.2009 was informed about his selection and called upon to pay the requisite fee. The letter specifically seeks payment of first term tuition fee in confirmation of the acceptance of the admission offer. On perusal of the aforesaid letter we find that the letter specifically mentions that fee once paid as per fee schedule will not be refunded under any circumstance. Thus, it is clear that as per offer letter the tuition fee deposited by the complainant was non-refundable. Similar issue came up before Honle High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Navdeep Singh vs. I.I.T.T. College of Engineering, Village Pojewal, District Nawanshahar & Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No.1241/2001 wherein it was observed as under: - . The petitioner has neither controverted the assertion contained in the written statement of respondent No.1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the fact of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner Similarly in the matter of Raj Singh vs. The Maharshi Dayanand University & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No.11819/1993 Honle High Court observed as under: - 0. Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhvika Khurana case (supra) cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is over-ruled. In writ petition No.2933 of 2011 in the matter of Amit Sadashiv Vaidya vs. The Principal, K.C. College of Engineering, Kopri, Thand and Ors., Bombay High Court observed as under: - . The rules which have been framed by the Directorate of Technical Education provide for a refund of tuition fees in certain eventualities. In so far as is material, the rules stipulate that no refund of fees except for the security of deposit can be granted where a request for cancellation of admission is received before or after the start of the academic session and the seat cannot be filled by the institute. In the present case, the First Respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the seat which is allotted to the petitioner could not be filled upon the petitioner vacating the seat. The petitioner, as the facts will show, withdrew from the seat at 3.40 p.m. on the cut-off date which was 15 September 2010. Since the seat has remained vacant, a refund of fees is not envisaged under the rules. The college has in fact stated that during a hearing before the AICTE, when the grievance of the petitioner was taken up, the college offered on humanitarian grounds a refund of 25% fees which the petitioner refused to accept. Be that as it may, having regard to the clear provisions which have been made in the rules, no case for the grant of a refund has been made out. The rules seek to balance on the one hand the refund of tuition fees to students who obtain more preferential allotments with the rights of managements. In the present case as a result of the withdrawal by the petitioner from the seat allotted, the seat would remain vacant for a period of four years. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed In the light of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the admission fee deposited by the complainant was not refundable particularly when in the admission offer it was made clear that the fee deposited shall not be refunded under any circumstances. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that in the State Commission a plea was raised by the complainant that he was entitled to refund of fee in view of UGC circular dated 23rd April, 2007 whereby it was directed that in the event of a student withdrawing from the course entire fee collected from him after deducting the process fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded to the student. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the UGC circular is of no avail to the respondent complainant because the petitioner institute does not come within the ambit of UGC as it is not getting any aid from UGC. We find merit in this contention. It is pertinent to note that Honle Supreme Court while deciding SLP (Civil) filed against the order of NCDRC in Revision Petition No.605/2012 in the matter of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. (supra) has observed thus: - n view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SSC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgmetns has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner institute cannot be termed as service provider and, therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in refusing to refund the tuition fee. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the Foras below have committed jurisdictional error and passed the impugned orders without taking into account the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, orders passed by the State Commission as also the District Fora are set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.