This revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the fora below. The matter was heard on a few occasions and finally on 17.2.2014. Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate for the revision petitioners and Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate for the respondent have been heard. We have also considered the record carefully. 2. The matter arises from investment of Rs.3 Lacs by the respondent/complainant on 18.5.2002 in 8% RELIEF BONDS, 2002 issued by the petitioners. The investment was made in bonds of Rs.1000/- each, having maturity value of Rs.1,480.25ps. But, on completion of the period of investment, the complainant was paid in May 2007 only the invested amount of Rs.3 Lacs. Interest on the amount deposited was denied on the ground of the investment having been made in violation of the Ministry of Finance Notification No.F.4(5) W & M/2008 dated 22nd April 2002. 3. Per contra, the case of the revision petitioners/OPs was that the investment of Rs.3 Lacs was in utilization of the enhanced limit of investment from Rs. 2 Lacs to Rs.3 Lacs, under the Notification of 22.04.2002. It is contended that this Notification also carried a condition that in a case of investment retirement benefits, as in the present case, the investment had to be made within three months of the date of receipt of retirement benefits. These benefits were received by the complainant on 07.02.2002. Hence, the permissible time limit for making the investment, utilising the enhanced limit, had ended on 06.05.2002. Consequently, the investment being made in violation of the Notification of 22.04.2002 was not entitled to the benefit of interest. 4. The District Forum held that the Notification of 22.04.2002, which governed this entire transaction, did not carry any clause permitting the OPs to deny interest on the investment. It also held that having utilised the money of the complainant for a period of five years, it was not open to the OPs to deny the interest thereon to the complainant. Such denial would amount to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the District Forum awarded the full interest on the bond as assured together with 6% interest from 1.12.2007. 5. While confirming the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has also observed that there is nothing on the record to show that at the time of making the investment, the contents of the Notification of 22.04.2002 had been informed to him. 6. During the course of arguments before us, Mr. Baldev Malik, learned counsel for the revision petitioners strongly argued that if the respondents/complainant was aware of the enhancement of limit of investment from Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.3 Lacs, he cannot be permitted to claim that he was unaware of another stipulation in the same Notification. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to claim that his investment was made within the permissible time limit. 7. We have carefully perused the Ministry of Finance Notification 22.04.2002. It does not carry, as very rightly observed by the District Forum, any clause which could empower the petitioners to deny interest on the investment in its entirety, merely on the ground that the investment had been made beyond the permissible time limit of three months. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners confined his attempt at explanation to a claim that the petitioners cannot be compelled to pay any interest on the investment made in violation of the terms of the Notification. We do not consider this to be an acceptable explanation. 8. Further, neither the revision petitioner nor the arguments of the learned counsel have attempted to offer any explanation as to why the investment could not be refused in the first instance at the point of offer itself in May 2002. Even if the complainant was not aware of all stipulations of the Notification, the department cannot be permitted to have acted in ignorance thereof. Interestingly, the records as produced on behalf of the petitioners themselves show that the fact of investment being in contravention of Notification of 22.04.2002 was brought to their notice during the course of departmental audit in July 2006. There is absolutely no explanation why the offer of refund of the principal amount could not be made immediately thereafter. There is again, no explanation why the revision petitioners had to wait right till the completion of the entire period of investment of the bonds, to enforce the condition of the Notification. 9. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between them and the complainant. In our view, having invited subscription to the bonds and having received subscription from the complainant, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek refuge behind this argument. 10. In the background of the details discussed above, we find no grounds in this revision petition to justify our intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. | 
