Registry has reported that despite notice being sent to the petitioner/complainant on 01.12.2009, he has not cured the defects pointed out. Revision petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground itself. On merit, the petitioner alleged that he had opened PPF account bearing No. 19 on 19.12.1991. On 05.10.1996, he opened another PPF account bearing No. 48 with the respondent/opposite party/post office. On being informed on 26.10.2002 by the respondent that later PPF account No. 48 was in contravention of Rules, the petitioner closed it without interest. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that he is entitled to interest on the deposited amount in the PPF account No. 48 which the respondent had contested. While setting aside the order of District Forum dated 12.01.2004, the State Commission has referred to two letters No. 7/34/88 – NS II dated 17.11.1989 and No. 1-23/ 75 – SB dated 08.02.1979. In State Commission’s opinion, in view of these letters an individual can open only one PPF account either in the post office or in bank and has to declare this in the application filed for opening the account; in case, second account is opened it will be treated as a irregular account and the amount deposited therein will not carry any interest unless the two accounts are amalgamated with the approval of Ministry of Finance (DEA). Having considered both the said letters, petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the amount deposited in above said PPF account No. 48. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.