PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER All these revision petitions contain common question; hence, decided by common order. 2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the separate orders dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 751 of 2013 Shobit Elhance & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., in Appeal No. 755 of 2013 Sanjay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and in Appeal No. 757 of 2013 Sanjeev Dhawan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeals partly, order of District Forum was modified. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners paid consideration amount for purchase of flat from OP/respondent inclusive of External Development Charges (EDC) @ Rs.261 per sq. ft. of the super area of allotted flats. It was further alleged that OP charged @ Rs.261 per sq. ft. as EDC charged above the amount of @ Rs.261 per sq. ft. already added in sale consideration. Complainants paid extra amount under protest in order to take possession of the flat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed 3 complaints before District Forum. OP resisted complaints and submitted that amount was charged as per agreement and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaints and directed OP to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with 18% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Both the parties filed appeals and learned State Commission dismissed appeal of OP vide order dated 7.11.2013 and allowed appeal of the complainant vide impugned order and directed OP to pay the amount of EDC charged in excess of the amount already charged as per agreement against which, these revision petitions have been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent paid EDC charges @ Rs.102.99 per sq. ft, whereas he has charged @ Rs.261/- per sq. ft. from the petitioner and learned State Commission committed error in not allowing refund of this amount; hence, revision petition be admitted. 6. Perusal of record reveals that in the complaint, complainant submitted that OP paid EDC charges to the Government @ 79.91 per sq. ft., but charged @ Rs.261/- per sq. ft. from the Complainant. On the contrary, in memo of revision petition complainant/petitioner submitted that OP deposited EDC charges @ Rs.102.99 per sq. ft. arrived on the basis of RTI information dated 23.10.2009. As per information dated 23.10.2009, interim rate of EDC on 30.11.2004 was Rs.78.46 lakhs per acre. By this RTI information it cannot be inferred that OP paid EDC charges @ Rs.102.99 per sq. ft. As per letter dated 23.10.2009, it was interim rate, what was the final rate is also not clear. In such circumstances, on the basis of RTI information dated 23.10.2009, it cannot be presumed that OP deposited EDC charges @ Rs.102.99 per sq. ft. with the Government and charged excess amount from the petitioner. 7. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order runs as under: uring the course of hearing learned Counsel for Matrix Build Well, on the instructions sought from them, has made a statement at bar that the EDC charged at the rate of Rs.261/- per sq. ft. that is, over and above of the EDC already included in the sale consideration, was charged in excess and the Matrix Build Well is ready to pay the amount charged in excess so far as the EDC amount is concerned. In the fact of it, learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that the appellants are satisfied if the said amount of EDC charged, that is, Rs.261/- per sq. ft. by Matrix Build Well is returned to them by way of draft within one month from the date of receipt of this order and as such do not press their complaint 8. Perusal of aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that learned Counsel for the petitioners admitted before learned State Commission that he will be satisfied if the excess amount of EDC above Rs.261/- per sq. ft. is returned by OP to them; they do not press their complaint. Learned State Commission passed impugned order on the basis of submission by Counsel for the petitioner which amounts to consent order against which, no revision petition is maintainable. 9. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners dated 08.01.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 751 of 2013 Shobit Elhance & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., in Appeal No. 755 of 2013 Sanjay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and in Appeal No. 757 of 2013 Sanjeev Dhawan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.