Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the National Commission). By the impugned order the National Commission set aside the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission). The respondents had filed complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (in short the District Forum) making a grievance that the present appellant Board cannot charge 10% extra charge for a corner plot and 5% extra charge for best location plot. According to the complainant these amounts are not payable as the appellant Board had accepted the amounts payable without such charges. The District Forum accepted the complaints and directed that the charges levied and demanded cannot be collected. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the District Forum the State Commission was moved by way of appeal by the present appellant. The appeal was allowed. It was specifically noted that the District Forum had not kept in view the fact that there is a provision in the manual issued by the Board in the year 1978 about such levy. The State Forum also referred to various documents like the Boards advertisement relating to registration for Higher Income Group Houses, Indore. The order of District Forum was set aside by the State Forum. Questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the State Commission revision petitions were filed before the National Commission which was allowed by the impugned order.;