For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, the delay of 21 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. Complaint in this case was filed by Pawan Ganga Education Society on 6.8.2010 for a direction to OP i.e. HUDA to pay interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant for the intermittent period from 19.2.2008 to 4.3.2010 on the sum of Rs.81,25,000/- remaining deposited with the opposite parties and also to waive interest @ 18% on the balance amount payable in respect of the plot in question for the above intermittent period because of the opposite parties failure to develop the site of the plot of the complainant. It was also requested that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- be also directed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant on account of escalation cost, mental agony, litigation expenses, etc. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the complainant Society was allotted a plot for Primary School site at Sector 9-A, Bahadurgarh measuring 4071 sq. mts. for a total price of Rs.2,25,00,000/- on 22.6.2006 by the opposite parties/respondents. It is averred that the complainant has made payment of Rs.81,25,000/- and he was ready and willing to take possession of the plot in question on payment of balance amount but the respondents failed to develop the site thereunder and in turn, to offer the possession thereof. The complainant, therefore, has sought interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.81,25,000/- and also a direction to the respondents to waive the interest on the outstanding amount out of price of the plot for the period in question because of the failure of the respondents to develop the site before offering the possession. The respondents resisted the complaint and averred that the possession was offered on 4.3.2010 along with demand of the outstanding balance with interest. It was submitted that the delay in delivering the possession of the plot in question was not due to the negligence of the respondents, but the delay was on the part of the complainant. Failure to develop the site within due time was also denied by the respondents. It was further submitted that the possession of the surrounding plots had already been delivered and as such, the question of development of the site in question could not be disputed. Denying deficiency in service on their part, the respondents sought dismissal of the complaint. 4. Based on the documents placed before it and other evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum noted that the development works in the area had already been completed at the allotted site on the date of issuing the allotment letter on 22.6.2006. The District Forum did not find any substance in the allegation that the site in question could not be offered due to lack of development works in the area. The District Forum also observed that the offer of possession had already been made to the complainant which he has duly agreed voluntarily without any coercion. Finding no merit in the complaint, the District Forum dismissed the same. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioner-Society challenged the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission). The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 12.8.2011 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-Society as also the complaint although on a different ground. 6. At the very outset, the State Commission considered the question of maintainability of the complaint and keeping in view the facts of this case and relying on the judgments of the National Commission in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Disksha Enterprises [(2010) Vol. III, CPJ 335], held that the school site in question was allotted to the complainant for its commercial use and the activities performed at the site are of commercial in nature to earn profit and hence, the complainant cannot be termed as a onsumer Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 7. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner-Society and perused the record placed before us. The short point which has arisen before us is as to whether the petitioner-Society can be termed as a onsumerin the given facts and circumstances of this case? At the request of ld. Counsel for the petitioner-Society, we had allowed time to the petitioner to place before us material by way of documents or otherwise which would prove that the petitioner-Society is a charitable or o profit or no lossorganization and is not engaged in the activities for commercial or profit earning motives. Undisputedly, the Society is engaged in educational and academic activities. However, perusal of its Memorandum of Association does not prove that its activities are for purely charitable purposes without involving commercial and profit earning motives. Its aims and objections clearly establish that the Society activities which are of commercial nature involve setting up of academic and other industrial institutions for imparting education and other technical education by charging fees from different candidates for its services. In the circumstances, no fault could be found with the impugned judgment which would call for our interference. The revision petition being meritless, therefore, is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.