Petitioner Rajasthan Housing Board was opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant applied for a HIG flat under Advocates’ quota with the petitioner Housing Board under Kalpatru Scheme in NIti Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 30.3.1989.  On 13.2.1992, respondent was informed by the petitioner that due to non-availability of land in Niti Nagar Scheme, he cannot be provided house and in alternative, if he wants

-2-

he can be registered under General Registration Scheme.  Vide letter dated 21.4.1993, respondent was given option under Cash Payment Scheme in Sanganer Scheme and Kalpatru Scheme for the house.  Respondent gave option for Mansarover Scheme but the petitioner did not allot the house.  Respondent, thereafter, approached the petitioner many a time but in vain.  Finally, on 15.2.2006 respondent received a demand draft from the petitioner refunding his amount along with interest with reason that applicant’s registered under Special Registration Scheme, 1988 are not allotted houses due to unavailability of land and as per the decision of higher authorities.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Before the District Forum, the stand taken by the petitioner was that the respondent did not exercise the option to pay under Cash Payment Scheme offered to him vide letter dated 21.4.1993.  Respondent had produced the letter dated 02.5.1993 written by him giving his option for Mansarover Scheme.  District Forum sent for the

-3-

original file of the petitioner.  On inspection, the District Forum found that the letter dated 02.5.1993 which was marked as Exhibit P-5, was on the file of the petitioner.  In view the fact that the letter dated 02.5.1993 written by the respondent was on the file of the petitioner, complaint was allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioner to allot the respondent a house subject to payment of balance amount within two months.  Compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- were also awarded.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission has reiterated finings recorded by the District Forum.  The State Commission in its order also went through the original file produced by the petitioner and found that the letter dated 02.5.1993 written by the respondent was on the file of the petitioner.  The State Commission has recorded a note to that effect in its order.

-4-

There is no infirmity in the order passed by the foras below.  Otherwise also, the finding recorded is a finding of fact based on evidence which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.