PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, The complainant had applied for residential plot and deposited a sum of Rs. 61,200/- on 03.05.2001 as also a sum of Rs. 91,800/- on 15.06.2001. The complainant was allotted a residential plot No. 886 on 30.10.2001. However she applied for cancellation of the said plot vide letter dated 27.12.2001. The OP refunded Rs. 90,706/- out of total amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- deposited by the complainant and forfeited a sum of Rs. 62,294/-. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of Rs. 62,294/- with interest @ 18% thereon w.e.f. 27.12.2001, besides Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service as also cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The OP namely petitioner took the stand that in terms of the condition No. 3 of allotment letter dated 30.10.2001, in case refusal to accept the allotment after making 25% payment, the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 are applicable and 10% of the total plot price was rightly forfeited. The District Forum held that the OP was entitled to deduct only 15% of earnest money which was Rs. 61,200/- and as such, the OP could deduct only Rs. 9080/-. Taking into consideration that the complainant had already received the sum of Rs. 90,706/-, the District Forum ordered return of sum of Rs. 53,114/- within one month. The District Forum further ordered that in case the above amount is not paid within the stipulated time, then the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 15% on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till recovery. The present petitioner had filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after referring to condition No. 3 of the allotment letter as also Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995, found that no opportunity was given to the complainant under Section 45(3) of the said Act and no notice was served on the complainant. Therefore, the appellant did not have the right to deduct 10% of the total amount paid straightway. The State Commission held that the District Forum had rightly deducted 15% of the earnest money deposited and ordered the refund of the remaining amount. The State Commission has, however, reduced the interest payable from 15% to 9% p.a. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances there was no question of giving any notice under Section 45(3) of the said Act since complainant had herself sought refund after deposit of 25% of the consideration. She also urged that condition No. 20 of the allotment letter provides that in case of breach of any condition of allotment or of regulation or non-payment for any amount due together with penalty, the plot or building thereon, as the case may be, shall be liable to be resumed and in that case the amount not exceeding 10% of the total amount of consideration money, interest and other fees in respect of the plot shall be forfeited . Lastly it was submitted that the fora below have wrongly allowed interest on the refund and in any case the rate of interest awarded is excessive. The complainant had deposited the earnest money of Rs. 61,200/- on 03.05.2001 and a sum of Rs. 91,800/- on 15.06.2001. A letter of allotment dated 30.10.2001 was issued in favour of the complainant by which residential plot No. 886 was allotted. The complainant applied for refund on 27.12.2001 i.e. to say within 60 days of the allotment letter. Condition No. 3 of the allotment letter reads as under : - . In case you refuse to accept the allotment and your refusal is received after the draw of lots and within 30 days of issue of allotment letter, in that case 10% of earnest money deposited shall be forfeited. In case refusal is received after 30 days and within 60 days of issue of allotment letter, 15% of the earnest money deposited shall be forfeited. In case the refusal / acceptance is not received within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter or refusal is received after making 25% payment, the action shall be taken under the provision of section 45(3) of Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995. The complainant claims refund on the ground of refusal within 60 days of the allotment letter. However, the case of the petitioner is that the refusal/request for refund was received after 25% payment and as such Section 45(3) of the said Act comes into play. Condition No. 3 of the allotment letter deals with the three situations namely (i) where refusal to accept allotment is after draw of plots and within 30 days of allotment of letter in which case 10% of earnest money shall be forfeited, (ii) if the refusal is received after 30 days and within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter, then 15% of earnest money deposited shall be forfeited and (iii) where the refusal / acceptance is not received within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter or refusal is received after making 25% of payment, action is required to be taken under provisions of Section 45(3) of the said Act. Admittedly, the request for refund was within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter, but it was after the 25% payments had been made. Therefore, prima facie the case of the petitioner would be covered under situation (iii) referred to above and as such the action was required to be taken by the petitioner in terms of Section 45(3) of the said Act, which reads as follows : - 3) If the transferee fails to pay the amount due together with penalty in accordance with the order made under sub-section (2) or commits a breach of any other condition of transfer, the Estate Officer may, by notice in writing call upon the transferee to show cause within a period of thirty days, why an order of resumption of the land or building or both, as the same may be, and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof which in no case shall exceed ten percent of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the transfer of the land or building or both, should not be made. Admittedly, no notice under Section 45(3) of the said Act has been given by the petitioner to the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the complainant had herself applied for refund, there was no need or necessity to give any notice. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since Section 45(3) of the said Act confers a discretion on the authority to forfeit of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof but the same shall not exceed 10% of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable. Therefore, for just and proper exercise of discretion, a notice is required to be given and depending upon the reply of the transferee, the amount of money to be forfeited has to be determined which shall not exceed 10% of the total amount of consideration. The petitioner cannot straight away deduct 10% of the total amount of consideration without issuing notice u/s 45(3) of the said Act. Since no notice was given under Section 45(3) of the said Act, the State Commission had very rightly come to the conclusion that no opportunity was given to the complainant under Section 45(3) of the said Act and as such the order of the District Forum ordering deduction of 15% of the earnest money could not be interfered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the State Commission cannot be interfered. Condition No. 20 of the allotment letter to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted in as much as no other condition of allotment has been breached. Likewise, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in so far the award of interest is concerned. The interest has not been awarded by the fora below on the refunded amount, but the interest has been awarded in default of payment of the refunded amount in the eventuality of the same being not paid within one month of receipt of the order. In other words, payment of interest is in default of payment of the refunded money as ordered by the fora below within the stipulated period of one month from the date of the order. The State Commission has reduced the said interest from 15% to 9%. In view of the above, I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act as I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to cost