This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as oard against the impugned order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 928/2010, ajasthan Housing Board versus Smt. Prem Devi vide which, while dismissing the appeal, order dated 23.04.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer allowing the consumer complaint no. 33/2010 filed by the complainant/respondent was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Board allotted house no. 5/138 to the complainant/respondent Smt. Prem Devi in Naseerabad in the financially weaker section category. She deposited a sum of Rs.23,716/- on 29.03.2006 for the house, but when she went to the spot for taking possession of the said house, she found a number of shortcomings in the construction of the house including sanitary and electrical fittings. She pointed out the defects to the notice of the Board and also made a complaint in writing on 20.02.2007, but no action was taken on the said complaint. On the other hand, the Board demanded a sum of Rs.26,844/- from her as lease amount along with interest, but the complainant requested for handing over the possession after rectifying the defects. She filed consumer complaint in question before the District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2010 and the Board was directed to remove the defects in the house and deliver possession of the house to her without charging any extra amount and also to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as legal expenses. An appeal made against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order and it was directed that a sum of Rs.5,750/- deposited with the District Forum by the Board shall be paid to the complainant along with the acquired profit. It is against this order that the Board has preferred the present revision petition. 3. At the time of hearing before us, it came to notice that the impugned order passed by the State Commission has been issued without making proper analysis of the facts and circumstances on record. On the face of it, it is a vague/sketchy order, because no reasons have been given for the observation that there was no error in the order passed by the District Forum and no interference in the same was required. 4. Further, during proceedings before this Commission, it was revealed that the Board had made the necessary repairs and asked the respondent to take possession of the house after depositing the outstanding dues of Rs.83,108/-. However, in reply to the revision petition filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the Board has no right to impose any penalty on the complainant. The complainant is ready and willing to take possession of the house, if the penalty imposed by the Board is waived off and the house is handed over in proper condition. It has also been stated that the house in question is still incomplete. 5. After examining the entire material on record, it becomes clear that the State Commission should have decided the appeal after carrying out a detailed analysis of all facts and circumstances on record and then arrived at the requisite conclusion. In view of this situation, there is no alternative but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the State Commission with the direction that they should give proper opportunity to both the parties to state the factual position and then give their verdict, mentioning detailed reasons for the same. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the State Commission for decision afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.10.2013.