Heard counsel for the petitioner. The challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in appeal no. 2138 of 2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 14.10.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur (in short, he District Forum), by which the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed with the direction to the opposite party/ housing board to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4600/- to the complainant and pay interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 23.03.1981, i.e., the date of deposit. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the order passed by the State Commission is a non-speaking one and does not bring out the mind of the State Commission and gives no reasons. To this extent we agree with the counsel for the petitioner but having examined the matter in its entirety and considered the checkered history of the matter, because number of complaints filed by the petitioner, orders passed by the District Forum on the complaints and the State Commission in appeals from time to time and the fact that at one stage under the directions of the State Commission the respondent Housing Board had allotted a house to the complainant but the complainant failed to avail of the same and pay of the price of the said flat, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum which was under challenge before the State Commission is eminently justified. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission and the revision petition is dismissed accordingly.