Order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ( for short, the tate Commission in Appeal No. 1398 of 2011 is sought to be assailed by the Director, National Capital Project Area, Alwar, and Secretary Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar under Section 21(b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal before the State Commission was filed against order dated 2.5.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alwar in Complaint No. 467 of 2008, by which order of the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and Director-OP(herein Petitioner) were directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 6% P.A. w.e.f. 21.12.2006 from the date of payment and also compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with the stipulation that the awarded amount shall be paid within one month of the passing of the order failing which complainant shall have the right to recover the entire aforesaid amount @ 15% P.A. 2. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by affirming the order passed by District Forum by granting further time of one month to comply with the order and directions given by the District Forum. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and he contended that in view of the grounds taken in the petition that the dispute raised by the Complainant before the State Commission was not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a onsumerwithin meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks support from the case UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. JT 2009 (4) SC 135. She further submits that the respondent having purchased the plot in question in an open auction on as is where is basis, cannot be said to be consumer, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. 4. The Honle Supreme Court took the view an altogether differ facts of that case which cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Respondent-complainant has been granted relief regarding refund of the earnest money along with above said directions and the petitioner would do well to comply with the said order, we, therefore see no merits in the present revision petition and same is hereby dismissed.