1. This order will decide the above said 15 revision petitions, which entail the same facts and question of law. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by a single common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has circulated a letter that he will seek permission to file rejoinders. This case was filed in this Commission on 31-10-2012. More than six months have already elapsed. Instead of getting the cases disposed of immediately, such applications are being filed. There is no need to file the rejoinders and the counsel for the petitioner agrees. The application is accordingly rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority has picked up conflicts with two issues regarding the order passed by the State Commission i.e., the State Commission order Clause (a) and Clause (d). Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute other Clauses in (b) and (c). First of all Clause (a) runs as follows:- IMUDA shall give benefit of interest to the complainants for the period from the date of the completion of the completion of houses, i.e. 31-07-2005, to the date when possession was offered at the rate of 12% per annum, instead of 8.5%, the rate at which benefit has already been given. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards Himachal Pradesh Housing Board igam ViharShimla. It has the allotment letter dated 30th June, 2004. There is a note which reads as:- entative schedule of completion is three years from the date of allotment. In case the possession of the unit is offered before the date of completion of payment schedule upto 70%, the tentative cost upto 70% will have to be paid in lump sum before executing HPTA and offering possession. 4. According to him, the completion of construction of the apartments was to be made in the year 2007 because it started in the year 2004 as is apparent from the allotment letter cited above. He submits that the petitioner has complied with the said condition and it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to raise any objection there upon. He further points out that the completion of the apartments was completed in the year 2005 and they had offered possession of the apartments in the year 2006. Civil construction was completed in the year 2005 and petitioner offered the possession of the apartments on 09-05-2006, i.e., earlier to the date of completion of the apartments as per the allotment order. 5. On the other hand, the brochure reads:-- he unit will be handed over to the allottee after making prescribed payment and completion of formalities as stipulated in allotment letter. The Housing Board shall not have any responsibility or obligation for any damage occurring to the unit and/or the services, like roads, paths, water supply/sewerage, electric supply and/other development works after the units are handed over. 6. It must be borne in mind that the brochure carries exiguous value. This is the main agreement which is to be taken into account. There is no inkling on the record which may go to show that the brochure was made a part of the agreement or allotment letter. Allotment letter, which was accepted by the complainants, is the clinching evidence. It adds steel to the petitioner case. It clearly states that the houses would be given within three years i.e. in the year 2007. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that completion of civil construction means that the entire skeleton houses were ready and other fixtures were yet to be fixed. Therefore, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and direct that the petitioner will be liable to pay no interest at all. 8. Now, we turn to the second aspect. Clause (d) is reproduced as follows:- d) While working out the final cost of the houses allotted to the complainants, cost of development land shall be taken to be Rs.1,800/- per square meters minus Rs.333.48 per square meter i.e. Rs.1,466.52 or say Rs.1,470/-. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have charged administrative charges only once at 5%. 9. However, the document reveals that it was twice. Para 18 of the judgment of the State Commission runs as follows:- . Therefore, in addition to the aforesaid figure of Rs.243.48 per square meter, price is required to be reduced by another amount of Rs.90/- per square meter. Total reduction in the cost of houses from the final actual cost thus has to be at the rate of Rs.333.48 and this reduction is to be made from the figure of Rs.1,800/- worked out as cost of land, per square meter by HIMUDA in Annexure R-4. It may be stated at the cost of repetition, that this cost of Rs.1,800/- per square meter indicated by HIMUDA in Annexure R-4, is inclusive of anticipated enhancement in compensation, which was quashed by the learned District Forum, vide its earlier order, which order had been affirmed by this Commission vide order dated 7th May, 2008. 10. Counsel for the respondent has invited our attention towards Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority with the special final costing of partially self-financing scheme, Housing Colony at Dhaundi Distt. Mandi, H.P., wherein it mentions about the external development cost and total development cost. The total development cost is reproduced as follows:- Raw land cost = 920.00 - Extn. Dev. Cost = 739.00 - 5% Admn. Charges= 83.00 ______ 1742.00 ______ The document continues further and cost of a house has been shown as under:-- ouse No. 33 - Land cost = 6,07,600.00 - Civil cost = 7,61,675.00 - Add interest w.e.f 4/06 to 3/06 @12%= 1,64,311.00 - 5% Admn. Charges= 60,460.00 __________ 16,02,146.00 __________ Emphasis supplied 11. The stipulation @ 5% administrative charges continues in each house. Therefore, the petitioner has charged administrative charges twice. The order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 12. In the result, we accept Clause (a) mentioned above and modify the order of the State Commission in favor of the petitioner that no interest for alleged delay is chargeable but regarding Clause (d), arguments of counsel for the petitioner are without merit and revision petitions are dismissed to that extent. The revision petitions are partly allowed. No costs. The revision petitions are disposed of.