This revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 24.12.2012 after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 86 days. The explanation for the delay is given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced thus:- hat thereafter, subsequent to passing of the impugned order dated 24.12.2012 in the present case, the Honle State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, in an exactly similar/identical case of another student of the Petitioner-Institute itself relating to refund of fees on the ground of taking admission in another college, vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 in First Appeal No.123 of 2013 was pleased to accept the Appeal of the Petitioner-Institute therein and set aside the order of the Ld. District Forum as well as the complaint of the student, on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of onsumerand the Petitioner-Institute cannot be termed as ervice provider This finding was arrived at by referring to various decisions of the Honle Supreme Court of India on the point. Thus, under the circumstances, the present petition also becomes entitled to be allowed on the ground of parity of reasoning, else there would arise inconsistent orders by the same Honle State Commission pertaining to the same subject matter and also in respect to the same Institute, which is untenable in law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delay caused in revision petition is unintentional. He pleaded that the petitioner was prompted to file the revision petition against the impugned order because the State Commission vide its order dated 08.04.2013 accepted the appeal of the petitioner institute in another similar matter and dismissed the complaint of the student concerned on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of onsumer Learned counsel argued that on the principle of parity the revision petition be heard and decided. 3. Admittedly, the revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 86 days. No explanation has been given in the application as to what prevented the petitioner from filing the revision petition within the period of limitation. The petitioner has failed to give any explanation for the delay. It is well settled that the delay in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned as a matter of routine unless the petitioner has given reasonable explanation for day to day delay. 4. The Apex Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under:- t is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought the condonation of delay on the principle of parity alleging that in another similar matter the appeal of the petitioner filed against some other student has been accepted by the State Commission holding that the student is not a consumer. Counsel for the petitioner however has failed to place on record copy of the said judgment or giving convincing argument as to how the respondent does not fall within the definition of onsumer On perusal of the impugned order we find that the State Commission has held that relationship of consumer and service provider has been established on record. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced thus:- he relationship between the complainant and the appellant-opposite party has been established on the record. It is also established that the complainant had deposited the fee with the appellant-opposite party. The appellant-opposite party failed to prove on the record that the seat left by the complainant remained vacant. Thus, the complainant was entitled to get refund of his resignation fee of Rs.20,000/- from the appellant-opposite party. The District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite party as mentioned above. Thus, no interference in the impugned order is made out. 6. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the State Commission. Thus, even on merits, there is no substance in the revision petition. 7. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed. As a consequence, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.