PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in F.A. No.203/2006 HUDA Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jangra by which the State Commission while allowing appeal filed by opposite party-respondent set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant was allotted Plot No. 2349 Sector 57, UE, Gurgaon vide Memo No.293 dated 6.1.2005 under defence quota. Complainant received letter from opposite party-respondent dated 6.10.2004 demanding the eligibility proof of the complainant under the Defence category, but complainant did not reply and visited office of opposite party and requested that application of the complainant be treated under general category. It was further alleged that opposite party refused to give allotment letter to the complainant, hence, filed complaint on account of alleged deficiency of service. Opposite party submitted reply and alleged that as complainant applied under Ex-servicemen but he failed to furnish proof for the same, his application could not be considered under general category and as such, there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to issue allotment letter for the aforesaid Plot No. 2349 Sector 57, UE, Gurgaon and in the alternate another plot of the same size along with interest against which opposite party filed appeal which was allowed by impugned order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that allotment letter No.1442 dated 26.6.2009 has already been issued in his favour but possession has not been given, hence, petition may be allowed and opposite party may be directed to handover possession of the plot and order of learned State Commission being contrary to law be set aside. 5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant-petitioner applied under Defence quota and lottery was drawn and he was successful. He was asked to furnish proof of Ex-servicemen, but he failed to submit any proof pertaining to category of Ex-servicemen and requested for treating him in general category which was not possible and, hence, plot was not allotted to him. In spite of the fact that petitioner did not apply in general category, learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite party to allot Plot No. 2349 Sector 57, UE, Gurgaon or any other alternate plot. Opposite party preferred appeal against the order of District Forum on 30.1.2006. In spite of pendency of appeal, officer of opposite party issued allotment letter No.1442 dated 26.6.2009 on the strength of which learned Counsel for the petitioner is submitting that petitioner may be given possession of plot in pursuance to allotment letter. We are surprised that in spite of pendency of appeal, officers of opposite party issued allotment letter dated 26.6.2009, though the petitioner-complainant misrepresented and applied in the category in which he did not fall for allotment of plot. His application for allotment was rightly disallowed by opposite party and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Learned State Commission has rightly set aside the order of District Forum and dismissed complaint which does not call for any interference. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to letter No. A-57-09/1128 dated 27.1.2009 issued by opposite party for option for alternative plot in pursuance to which petitioner consented for alternate plot and allotment letter dated 26.6.2009 was issued on this option. It appears that this letter has been managed by the petitioner because, when he failed to furnish proof of Ex-servicemen, he could not have been considered successful applicant for the draw of general category as he did not apply in general category. In such circumstances, opposite party is directed to take disciplinary action against its defaulting officers who have issued letter dated 27.1.2009 and allotment letter dated 26.6.2009. 7. Consequently, petition is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.