None present on behalf of the petitioner. In this case notices were issued on 13.09.2000, 08.11.2010 and 10th January 2011 to the petitioner to remove certain defects. The said notices were duly received by the petitioner and the AD cards are placed in the part I of the file. However, defects have not been removed. Notice was once again issued on 7th March 2011 enclosing a copy of the proceedings dated 25th February 2011. The registered notice is neither received back nor the acknowledgement due thereof. Since 30 days time has elapsed, the petitioner is deemed to have been served with the notice. Be that as it may, we have gone through the judgment of the State Commission. The petitioner has applied for loan but that loan could not be sanctioned since the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents relating to the plot of land on which the construction was to be made in respect of which the loan had been applied for. The respondent Bank therefore, did not sanction the loan since the required formalities were not completed. In view of this, the State Commission held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank and we concur with the findings and reasoning of the State Commission. It may mentioned here that the District Forum had already passed an order to return the sum of Rs. 4800/- deposited by the complainant with 9% interest per annum. In view of the above, we do not find any case for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.