Heard counsel for the petitioner.  There are concurrent findings of two fora below against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has argued before us that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the fee in view of the Public Notice dated 23.4.2007 which lays down as under :-

“Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently failing vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.”

          In this connection, he has drawn our attention to para 2 of the written statement of the respondent wherein, it is stated that the seat vacated by the petitioner/complainant, besides others, has all along, remained unfilled even after commencement of study due to non-availability of the candidates.  It was also urged that for the non-availability of wait-listed candidates, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.   We are not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner.  The petitioner had attended classes upto 2.9.2008 and withdrew on 8.9.2008 i.e., after last date of counseling held on 27.8.2008. The petitioner left the course after joining the same and ultimately the seat had remained vacant on account of which the University had to suffer loss due to withdrawal of the candidate.   Moreover, the State Commission also found that the complainant has not been able to establish that he could not continue studies due to eye problem but he had left the course on his own and the seat remained vacant throughout the year.

In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.