Respondent who had been duly served by publication in ainik Bhaskarfor 26.11.2012 has already been proceeded ex-parte. 2. We fail to understand, as when the respondent is already ex-parte, then where was the occasion for Registry to issue fresh notice to him. Registry is warned to be careful in future and should comply with the judicial orders passed by this Commission, in letter and spirit. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel that impugned order passed by State Commission is contrary to law, facts and material on record, as it is a non-speaking order and no reason has been given while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Learned counsel in support, has relied upon decision of Honle Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, IV 2010 CPJ 61 (SC). 4. Translated copy of impugned order is reproduced as under ; Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage. Perused the record. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground for interfering with order dated 11.10.2010 of the District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur passed in Complaint No.7/2009, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, affirming the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in Complaint No.7/2009 the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The amount of Rs.8,500/- deposited by the appellant before the District Forum, Jaipur-I, along with accrued benefit be released to the complainant. For compliance of rest of the order the appellant is granted one-month period from today. Sd/- Sd/- (Shashi Kumar Pareek) (Ashok Parihar) Member, Chairman State Commission Consumer State Commission Consumer Disputes, Jaipur Disputes, Jaipur 5. A bare perusal of impugned order shows that no reasons whatsoever, has been recorded therein. Honle Supreme Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 observed ; . At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows : n a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms : e have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellant forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressla Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communi-cated to the Commission. Issue notice for remand of the matter to the State Commission for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. 5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21.7.2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21.7.2000 after giving notice to the parties. 6. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 8811/2009, decided on 21.2.2011, Honle Apex Court observed ; bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons. 7. In the present case also, State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever while dismissing the appeal. 8. In view of the law laid down by Honle Supreme Court, we allow the present revision petition. Impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons. 9. State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 4.4.2013. 11. Dasti in addition.