Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent/complainant had registered himself under the General Registration Scheme 1979 for Lower Income Group (LIG) flat on ‘cash payment option’.  On allotment of the flat, the petitioner Board asked the respondent to deposit the first instalment, to which the respondent showed his inability to pay, being a low salaried person and requested for a loan from the Collector.  The petitioner allotted another flat to the respondent for Rs.18,609/- to be paid in a lump-sum within 7 days but he sought the allotment of the house on hire-purchase basis.  Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the petitioner Board on 29.11.1999 and 21.2.2000 but nothing was done.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 31.1.2005, allowed the complaint in the following terms :

“As such after allowing complaint of the complainant the instructions are given to the respondents to allot a house of the same size and area of allotted plot No.11/953, on dated 11.2.87.  On the basis of availability, after adjusting the amount deposited earlier by the complainant on the basis of monthly rental scheme in any scheme of the respondents within six months from the date of this order.”

          Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been partly a                                  llowed.  The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to allot a flat to the respondent on the current price. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the State Commission has filed the present Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has a very limited grievance against the order of the State Commission.  The only grievance spelt out by him is that the respondent had applied for allotment of the flat on ‘cash payment basis’ but the State Commission has not clarified the same.  That the petitioner is prepared to allot the flat to the respondent on current price provided it is clarified that the house is given to the respondent on ‘cash payment basis’.

Our reading of the order is that the direction sought by the petitioner is inherent in the order passed by the State Commission.  But, in any case, we clarify that the flat be allotted to the respondent on the current price on ‘cash payment basis’ for which the petitioner would give 3 months from the date of allotment to the respondent to pay the amount.

With this observation, Revision Petition is disposed of.

We have clarified the order of the State Commission in the absence of the respondent to save the litigation cost but if the respondent is aggrieved by the same then he is put at liberty to move an application for recall of this order.