1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Dr. Shashibala, against the order dated 10.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.987 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner purchased a flat in the auction and deposited Rs.2,60,000/- part payment.  The auction was cancelled by the competent authority and the bid amount was refunded.  However, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur-III Jaipur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) bearing No.143/2014, which was ultimately dismissed.

3.      The complainant then filed appeal against the order of the District Forum bearing No.987 of 2016 before the State Commission with the request that the auction may be approved and the property may be delivered to the complainant.  The State Commission vide its order dated.10.02.2017 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.

6.      Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the amount deposited at the time of bidding has already been refunded, but the petitioner wants that the auction may be approved and property may be conveyed in her name.

7.      I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record.  Prima facie the auction purchaser is not a consumer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660.    

8.      Moreover, when the auction has been cancelled by the competent authority, there is no question of approving the auction by any Consumer Forum. 

9.      Based on these grounds, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.