The Petitioner-Institute has come in revision against concurrent findings of two fora below. We have heard learned counsel on behalf of the Institute. The Complainant had taken admission in the Opposite Party-Institute under payment category. The order of the District Forum shows that the Principal of the Institute told the Complainant that if she cancels admission under payment category, she will be given admission under management quota. However, her admission under the general category was cancelled and she was not admitted under management quota. It appears that by letter dated 26.8.2004 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, opposite party no.2 informed the Opposite Party-institute that the Complainant had secured admission on 28.10.2002 and her admission shall not be cancelled until she herself submits application. In case cancellation of admission, deposited fee shall be returned after deduction of attendance days as per rules prescribed by MHCET 2003 Brochure No. 10.4.2001. In fact, the Complainant had submitted application on 27.12.2002 for cancellation of admission in 2002 but her admission was not cancelled and when she was not granted admission under management quota, in order to avoid loss of academic year, she submitted application for not cancelling admission on 6.1.2003. The Opposite Party-Institute had taken stand that the admission had been cancelled by resolution passed by Local Management Committee meeting no.25 resolution no.4 dated 4.1.2003. However, District Forum found that opposite party no.1-Institute failed to prove the fact that the Complainant was informed of the said resolution. The Complainant also submitted application for reapproval of admission but Opposite Party no.1- Institute refused to consider the same. In fact, in the facts and circumstances the Institute should have considered her request. District Forum also found that the Opposite Party no.1-Institute had accepted the fee for two courses and that It would be proper to refund the fee after deducting 20% from the 1st year course and all fee accepted for 2nd year. The District Forum also found that the Opposite Party no.1-Institute had failed to return the original documents. Keeping in view all these facts, the District Forum had ordered refund of the fee after deducting 20% and pay 8% p.a. interest from 4.1.2003 till date of order. Besides this, the District Forum had also awarded Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and educational loss and also Rs.5,000/- towards costs. Interest @ 18% was ordered from the date of order till the satisfaction of amount. In the appeal filed by the Opposite Party no.1-Institute, the State Commission concurred with the view taken by the District Forum and found refund of Rs.57,600/- was just and legal and did not call for any interference. However, the interest was reduced to 6% p.a. The State Commission found that the compensation for retaining original documents etc., which was Rs.25,000/-, was excessive and it was reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Likewise cost was reduced to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. -4- We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the State Commission is just, fair and equitable and it does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The revision is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.