PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 526/2010 The Manager, Andhra Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Jaya Raj & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent no.1 had experience in manufacture of washing powder, liquid soap, etc. OP no. 3/respondent no. 2 issued notification for unemployed candidates for self-employment under the scheme P.M.E.G.P. Complainant applied and he was selected by OP nos.3&4/respondent nos. 2&3 and also issued letter to OP no. 1/petitioner for sanction of bank loan. Loan was not sanctioned to the complainant and cost of raw material increased. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint. OP nos. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that they are not aware about experience of complainant. OP enquired about feasibility of marketing of detergent manufactured by the complainant and found that it was not viable. Complainant was not having any space for putting up manufacturing unit of washing powder and prayed for dismissal of complaint. President of learned District Forum dismissed complaint, whereas other two members of the District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP no. 1 to release the loan amount of Rs.3,80,000/- and further awarded Rs.1,000/- towards cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the respondents even after service. 4. Heard learned proxy Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission mentioned in the judgment that facts of the case in hand are similar to decision rendered by Honle Apex Court in (2010) 7 SCC 489 Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sanajay Shankarsa Mamarde, but dismissed appeal of the petitioner which is against the law; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant applied for bank loan which was not sanctioned by OP/petitioner and on this sole count, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complaint was filed which was allowed by majority of the members of District Forum. Learned State Commission while deciding appeal placed reliance on the judgment of Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors. (Supra), but in the second sentence dismissed appeal without any reason which is apparently a contradictory finding because if State Commission found that facts of the appeal were similar to the facts of the case decided by Honle Apex Court, State Commission should have allowed appeal and dismissed complaint. Findings of the State Commission are as under: he Corporation was constrained not to release the balance instalments and recall the loan on account of stated defaults on the part of the complainant himself. Non release of loan amount was not because of any deficiency on the part of the Corporation but due to complainant’s conduct and therefore, the failure of the Corporation to render `service’ could not be held to give rise to claim for recovery of any amount under the Act. We also find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Corporation that unless the action of a financial institution is found to be mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge, as the wisdom of a particular decision is normally to be left to the body authorized to decide. In U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. Vs. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd. & Anr. (supra) this Court had observed that a Corporation being an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide 15 by, and functions and obligations to discharge, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own right. The views it forms and the decisions it takes would be on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculation. In such a situation, more so in commercial matters, the court should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to which that task is assigned. It was held that: (SCC p. 761, para 21) nless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation. In the case on hand the first respondent bank has made bonafide enquiry and came to the conclusion that the detergent manufacture unit has no viability in the competitive market and the loan amount is sanctioned is difficult to be recovered. The principle laid in the aforementioned decisions is applicable to the facts of the p resent case. We do not see any merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed 7. In the light of judgment of Honle Apex Court, we find that it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to sanction loan. Merely because loan has not been sanctioned, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner unless action is shown as malafide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on an inquiry manufacturing unit of the complainant was not found viable; hence, loan was not sanctioned. We do not find any deficiency on the part of petitioner and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint by majority of the members and the President of the District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 526/2010 The Manager, Andhra Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Jaya Raj & Ors. is set aside and majority judgment of District Forum dated 1.4.2010 is also set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.