PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER 

              The petitioner/complainant was allotted Plot No.2/105 of ‘C’ Type vide letter dated 7.4.1989 under the cash down payment scheme and was directed to deposit Rs.57,000/- by 16.9.1988 in addition to Rs.3,000/- registration amount which had already been deposited. The allotment letter further stated that if the payment is not made by 16.9.1988, the penal interest @ 16% p.a. shall be imposed. The complainant did not pay the said amount, as directed. Thereafter, several letters were written to the complainant by the OP from time to time for deposit of the amount with penal interest, but the complainant did not deposit the same. Consequently, the allotment was cancelled. On recommendation of the State Minister, Urban Development, the complainant was given further opportunity to pay the amount due with 16% interest till 30.1.1992. On account of non-payment, the allotment was cancelled and the plot was allotted to someone else. It appears that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.57,000/- in instalments between 1991 to 1992. Subsequently, on special request made by the complainant, Additional Secretary of the OP vide letter dated 6.4.1993 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.32,643.10 ps. with the Authority till 30.4.1993, failing which, penal interest @ 21% p.a. shall be charged. The complainant did not deposit the said amount in spite of the fact that various letters were written from time to time for making the said payment. Ultimately, letter dated 7.7.1998 was written by the Under Secretary of OP informing the complainant that the plot has been cancelled due to non-deposit of the amount by the complainant within the stipulated time. Subsequently, Vice-Chairman of the OP passed an order that if the complainant is willing to take the plot, he shall deposit at the current rate of Rs.1400/- per sq. Mt. And in that case allotment of Plot No.3/30, Vishesh Khand under the Gomti Nagar Scheme may be considered. The present cost of the said plot was stated to be Rs.2,80,000/- and upon payment of the same, the possession of the plot be given to the complainant on deposit of the said amount by 30.9.1998. It was also stated therein that the balance amount of Rs.2,19,500/- which remains after adjusting the earlier deposited amount of Rs.60,000/- be deposited. It was contemplated that handing over the possession shall be subject to the interim order passed by the State Commission in pending Appeal No.959/99 filed by the OP against the complainant. It may be mentioned here at this stage that the District Forum had directed transfer of Plot No.C-3/30 in favour of the complainant by executing sale deed and hand over possession thereof for the cost of Rs.60,500/-. In interim order dated 28.5.2001, passed by the State Commission, the physical possession of the Plot No.C-3/30, was ordered on deposit of Rs.32,643/-. The complainant had thus deposited a total sum of Rs.93,143/-. It is in these circumstances that the State Commission had directed the complainant to deposit balance of Rs.2,19,500/- together with the interest calculated on the basis pf proposal dated 16.7.1998 of the OP. The complainant was asked to pay simple interest on the said amount of Rs.2,19,500/- w.e.f. 30.9.1998 and on failure of paying the same, the OP shall take back the plot of which possession has been given to the complainant. After hearing the parties, we find that the order of the State Commission is just, fair, equitable and well reasoned order, which has been passed after taking into consideration the entire background of the matter. The State Commission has in the elaborate order considered the matter threadbare. The order of the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The complainant has already deposited a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- on 21.1.2010 in the District Forum 1st, Lucknow in terms of order dated 30.11.2009 of this Commission being 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission including interest thereon, as stated by the Counsel for the Complainant vide application filed on 15.4.2010. The liability of the complainant shall, therefore, to pay the balance amount with interest thereon. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.