1. There was an advertisement regarding residential plots given by the Improvement Trust, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. Sh. S. C. Khanna, the complainant took a loan in the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the bank to deposit the earnest money @ 10.50% interest and deposited Rs. 1,65,000/- with the respondent for getting a residential plot. 2. The respondent returned this amount after retaining the same for nine months. The allegation of the complainant is that the matter should have been finalized within two months and extra seven months were taken. Again the complainant had to pay Rs. 10,000/- as interest. His another grievance is that the respondent did not mention the date of the draw and that should be termed as unfair trade practice. The complainant also sought information under RTI Act and the delay was admitted. It was prayed that under these circumstances, the complainant should be awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State commission also dismissed the appeal and made the following observations:- 3. The appellant applied for a residential plot on freehold basis to the respondent Trust. Ex. R2 is brochure and Ex. R3 to Ex. R5 are the terms and conditions. We have gone through this and there is no mention of any condition that the respondent was bound to hold draw after a particular period. No date of the draw is mentioned. Under the head ther Conditions the condition no. 1 is very clear, which reads that no interest will be paid on the amount deposited by the applicant. The appellant has applied for the residential plot and he must have read all these terms and conditions. As per the information received by the appellant under RTI Act, there were 9711 applications in all and about the delay, it was mentioned that due to administrative reasons, some delay has occurred, but still the draw was not held with that much delay and the applicants will get the refund of their amount by 30th September, 2009. 4. The revision petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.