No one appears for petitioner even on second call, which shows   reluctance of the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding and revision petition merits dismissal on this count alone.  However, we have gone into merit of the case also. 

The factual backgrounds are that petitioner who was a retired person applied for allotment of a shop with deposit of Rs.50,000/- with respondent – Authority.  In initial allotment that was processed, petitioner could not succeed, however, subsequently he was allotted a shop on second floor of the complex which was not acceptable to him.  He accordingly moved respondent – Authority for refund of the deposit along with interest.  Before his claim could be settled by respondent – Authority, he rushed to consumer fora seeking same relief, District Forum while accepting claim directed respondent – Authority to refund deposit of Rs.50,000/- along with 10% interest.  When finding was challenged by respondent, it was reversed by State Commission.  Regard being had to the stipulations made in the advertisement casting no liability on respondent – Authority for refund of deposit along with interest, in case one opts for refund of deposit for one reason or the other.  The issue settled by the State Commission is now reiterated in the revision before us.  Having considered the finding recorded by the State Commission which is based on correct appreciation of evidence.    Petitioner did not have a good case even on merit.  Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.