Petitioner has filed this revision petition in person. Though the petitioner is absent yet we have proceeded with the matter by examining the impugned order which is the subject matter of challenge in the revision petition. 2. We are at pains to note that the State Commission has rendered the impugned order dated 1.12.2010 without following principles of natural justice. The impugned order reads as follows:- arties were listened on the stage, Documents reviewed. There is no defect in the order of the District Forum Jhunjhunu dated 16.12.2009 in the case No. 53/2008 after looking in to all facts and circumstances of the matter in Question and the order of the District Forum is based on facts therefore there is no need of intervention. So the Order of District Forum Jhunjhunu Dated 16.12.2009 is being upheld. The appeal of the petitioner appellate is dismissed. 3. We find that not only the impugned order is bereft of any legal reason, but it does not at all reflect any application of judicial mind to the contentions raised in the appeal nor does it show which documents were perused and how the State Commission reached conclusion that there was no deficiency in the order of the District Forum. It is well settled that an order which is not backed-up by the legal reasons is on-speaking order We deem it proper, therefore, to allow the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is unsustainable in view of the very nature thereof. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission with direction to decide the revision petition afresh on merits and by giving adequate reasons in respect of the order that will be passed. The First Appeal No. 81 / 2010 shall be restored to its original position before the State Commission. The State Commission shall give due notice to the petitioner / appellant and respondents regarding date of appearance. Needless to say that the appeal be decided after hearing both the sides. 5. We expect the State Commission to give up such practice of passing standardise orders which can be applicable to any kind of appeal. We mean to say that such order is like a cap which may fit to any head and as such is an improper practice. Revision petition is accordingly disposed off.