ORDER Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.—Appellants complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum on 5.5.2004. It is against this order in Complaint No. 397/2002, passed by District Forum Shimla, and that the present appeal has been filed by her. - 2. Main grievance of the appellant is that other similarly situate persons who were also allotted flats or category III at Shoghi at a tentative cost of Rs. 5,30,000 whereas in her case tentative cost is shown as 5,50,000. In addition to this her other grievance is that the flat when offered was not in a habitable condition, it was inaccessible because the approach road was in bad shape so were the stairs. Finally she has deposited Rs. 5,80,000 upto 21.3.2002. Because identical flats as were allotted at a cost of Rs. 5,30,000 to other persons, therefore, she is entitled to refund of Rs. 50,000 with interest and cost etc. This claim of the appellant was seriously resisted by the respondent. According to it, final cost of the flat in the case of the appellant was worked out at Rs. 6,74,000 and she was informed vide letter dated 28.11.2000 in this behalf. Record of the complaint file shows that large correspondence was exchanged between the parties. Both of them sticking to their respective stands. 3. After having argued the matter, written submissions have also been filed by the parties which are on record and we have examined those as well. In this background submission of Mr. Chauhan on behalf of the appellant was that this is not a case of pricing for which Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction, but in fact, this is a case of clear cut discrimination when similarly situate persons have been treated dissimilarly by the respondent in the matter of charging price for identical flats. According to him there cant be any difference between the allot tees of type III flats at Shoghi in the matter of price. As such the respondent cannot be allowed to discriminate and charge two different prices from two different allot tees as in the present case for same accommodation. 4. On the other hand stand of Mr. Rathore that no allot tee after 17.5.1999 has been allotted category III flat at a price less than what is being charged/ claimed from the appellant. 4. On the other hand stand of Mr. Rathore that no allot tee after 17.5.1999 has been allotted category III flat at a price less than what is being charged/ claimed from the appellant. Therefore, according to him impugned order of the Distirct Forum below, in Complaint No. 397/2002 calls for no interference and he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. In support of this submission he urged that the District Forum below has rightly followed the law laid down by the National Commission in the case of Maya Devi Keshwani v. H.P. Housing Board 94, CTJ 29 (CP) National (NCDRC). 5. So far legal proposition that in the matter of pricing up Housing Boards, Consumer Foras cannot go into the question is concerned there can hardly be any dispute. However, m the present case, we feel that all laws including Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is subject to the provisions of Constitution of India including Article 14 thereof. In this view of the matter according to us so far pricing of dwelling units by the respondent is concerned, we reiterate that Foras under the aforesaid Act cannot go into that question because that is a matter relating to its prices. However, under the garb of a plea of question of pricing being involved, respondent cant be permitted to discriminate between two similarly situate persons who are allot tees either at the same time or side by side. In this view of the matter, we feel that the District Forum below, has only gone into the question of pricing in accordance, with law laid down by the National Commission, but whether there was discrimination or not has not been examined. 6. We may point out that in respect to allot tees of flat Nos. 1, 5 and 6in Block No. 24 record was produced by Mr. Rathore and we have examined [these files. We are not saying anything in this behalf, for the view that we are taking in this case. Because anything said in this order is likely to prejudice either of the parties, therefore, we are keeping this question open to be examined by the District Forum on the basis of the record of the respondent. 7. We are not saying anything in this behalf, for the view that we are taking in this case. Because anything said in this order is likely to prejudice either of the parties, therefore, we are keeping this question open to be examined by the District Forum on the basis of the record of the respondent. 7. We may also clarify that except for examining the question of discrimination in the matter of charging price, we have not gone into any other plea raised by the parties at the time of hearing of this appeal and have thus expressed no opinion thereon. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that so far, question of pricing of dwelling unit by the Housing Boards like respondent is concerned, that is beyond the domain of the Foras in view of the decision of the National Commission and they cannot go into. However, we are of the firm view that the question of discrimination in the matter of charging price qua the allotted flats by the Housing Boards like respondent is concerned, the Fora can certainly go into such question. 9. Thus while allowing this appeal, case is remanded back to the District Forum Shimla with a direction to determine whether the appellant has been discriminated vis-a-vis other allot tee of category III flats at the same or near about date by allotting flats to the latter at a lesser price than what is being claimed by it from the respondent, leaving the parties to bearing their own posts. 10. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum at Shimla on 18.9.2006 District Forum will make all out efforts for the early disposal of this complaint. Office will make available a copy this order to the parties free of costs as per rules. Appeal allowed.