Aggrieved by the orders dated 28.7.2010 and 10.12.2010 passed by M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeals No. 2173 of 2009 and 2392 of 2009 respectively, M. P. Housing Board has filed these revision petitions.

          The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaints are amply noted in the orders of fora below and need no repetition at our end, which otherwise have been taken note of by this Commission in the order dated 18.04.2011 in revision petition No. 4690 of 2010 by observing as under:-

“Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents on delay.  Delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondents on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the revision may have to be dismissed.  In addition, a sum of Rs.7,500/- be paid by the petitioner to the respondents for travel and allied expenses on or before the next date of hearing.

          Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has offered a house in Third Scheme 41MIG (carpet area 105.05 sq.mt.)/ and 13 LIG houses at the cost of Rs.13,90 lakhs and Rs.10.30 lakhs, respectively.  However, the respondents states that there is no such scheme with a carpet area of 105.05 sq.mt.  The respondents have placed before us Xerox copy of pamphlet showing schedule of payment, a plan of MIG (DX) for which they had applied which speak of payment of Rs.11.5 lakhs and carpet area of 70.45 sq. mtrs.  They have also filed advertisement dated 27.02.2010 published in ‘Nai Duniya Samachar’ showing MIG (DX) with built up area 68.24 sq. mts. costing Rs.13.90 lakhs.  The respondents have also produced another pamphlet published by the Estate Officer of M.P. Housing Board wherein as against MIG (Dx), the total built up area is shown as 68.24 sq. mts. and total payment as Rs.13.90 lakhs.  In view of this we deem  it necessary that an affidavit be filed by the Estate Officer, Shri Girish Jain of M. P. Housing Board, Ujjain, M. P. to specifically confirm the existence of Third Scheme as also the details given in paragraph 17.5 at Page 11 of the revision.  The Estate Officer shall also explain on affidavit the discrepancy, which is noticed in the plan with reference to plan at page 50 of the revision as also the notice dated 27.02.2010 published in ‘Nai Duniya Samachar’ wherein as against MIG(Dx) the built up is shown as 68.24 Sq. Mts. as advertised and the Scheme under which the respondents had applied initially, namely MIG (Dx) costing Rs.11.50 lakhs.  It is also necessary that the Executive Engineer who is executing Third Scheme shall also file an affidavit as to the present position of the Scheme including whether any construction has already started and when the houses in question shall be completed in all respect for handing over possession.

Adjourned to 19.07.2011 for admission.”

          Pursuant to the said direction, Shri Girish Jain, Executive Engineer has filed his affidavit which states that MIG (Dx) house in the second scheme are at advance stage of the construction.  The affidavit however fails to explain the circumstances under which third scheme 41 MIG (carpet area 105.05 sq.mt)/ and 13 LIG houses was scraped and second scheme was adopted.  However, since another MIG (Dx) was notified which was practically the same as the earlier scheme, they gave the option to the complainants in the second scheme but the cost of house under this scheme was higher i.e. Rs.13,90,000/- as compared to the cost of the house under the earlier scheme, which was Rs.11,50,000/-.  The Housing Board being ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is supposed to conduct its business in a just and proper manner and for the over all welfare of the public at large.  As the precise reasons for changing the said scheme in which cost of house was Rs.11,50,000/- are not specifically explained.  Of course, the Housing Board has given option to the complainants to avail third Scheme but at a higher price, the complainants cannot be made to suffer and pay more for no fault of theirs and should pay high price of the flats of the second Scheme, more particularly, when there is absolutely no change in the specifications of the flats in both the schemes.

          We are, therefore, of the view that the fora below have found a just solution to the problem of the complainants and have done nothing wrong in directing the petitioner-Housing Board to charge the price of Rs.11,50,000/-, which was the cost of the house under the first scheme and not to charge price of Rs.13,90,000/-, which was the price in the second Scheme.  We, therefore, see no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.