Learned counsel for the parties are present.

       Heard on admission.

       In this revision petition, the petitioner has made prayer to set aside the ex parte interim order dated 05.2.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2019 arising out of CC No. 7 of 2019.

       The revision petitioner is OP No. 1 whereas the OP No.1 in this revision is the complainant and OP Nos. 2 and 3 are the OP Nos. 2 and 3 respectively before the learned District Forum.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       The impugned order in its entirety reads as follows:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Heard the Ld.Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel and after perusal of documents we deem it just and proper to direct the Ops. to restore power supply to the house of the petitioner forthwith on receipt of order as it has been disconnected without  prior notice, till appearance.’ The petitioner is directed to install a new meter in his premises within one month through the Ops, by following due procedure of law.

Put up on date 07/303/2019 for appearance of the Ops., and objection if any.”

       In assailing the impugned order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order is an out and out  non-speaking order passed by the learned District Forum. The order directing restoration of power to the house of the complainant is not supported by any reason. Consumer Forum, being a quasi judicial body, is required to pass reason and speaking order in order to  enable aggrieved party to challenge the order by pointing out infirmities in the reasonings. An order without supported by reasons is a nullity and violates the principle of natural justice.

       In reply learned counsel for Op No.1/complainant submits that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file the revision. Power supply has been availed by the complainant from the Electricity Distribution Company CESU. Since the revision petitioner representing M/s ENZEN, Electrical Sub-Division, Dhenkanal disconnected the supply of electricity, the revision petitioner has been impleaded as OP No.1 in the complaint.

       On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the complainant himself has arrayed the present revision petitioner as OP No.1 in the complaint. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint are Officers of CESU. The revision petitioner also has been described as the Assistant Manager (Commercial), M/s ENZEN Global Solution Pvt. Ltd of “Electrical Sub-Division, Dhenkanal.” In such circumstances, the complainant himself having arrayed the revision petitioner as a party to the complaint, the sole ground advanced on behalf of OP No.1/complainant to resist the admissibility of the revision petition has no basis.

       On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned District Forum has assigned no reason in support of the direction to restore power supply. By simply mentioning that submissions have been considered and documents have been perused, a quasi judicial body like District Forum is not supposed to pass such an order. Such non-speaking and unreason order amounts to improper exercise of jurisdiction and is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

       Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Orders consequential to the impugned order, if any are also set aside.