PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/03/1947 – National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Uttam Sitaram Bagal & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed at admission stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents filed complaint before District Forum and learned District forum vide order dated 28.11.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to pay Rs.2,20,680/- along with 9% p.a. interest w.e.f. 12.3.2001, Rs.7,500/- towards mental distress and Rs.2500/- towards costs. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order as learned State Commission has not dealt with the facts and pleas raised by petitioner in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that District forum has already dealt the matter at length and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Order of State Commission runs as under: 3. In the instant case, the seed in question appears to be defective seed. It did not bear the fruits i.e. peas. On the complaint, the field was inspected by the Village Officer and Agriculture Officer. Considering the per se defect in the seed, it is for the manufacturer to explain as to how seed sowed could not bear fruits i.e. peas and since, they failed to discharge their said burden, ultimate order passed against the manufacturer cannot be faulted with. We find no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER 1. Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed off accordingly. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. 7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that this order neither contains facts of the case nor pleas raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal nor any finding on the pleas of the petitioner, whereas learned State Commission should have dealt with all the pleas raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal. Impugned order is not a speaking order and Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: “1.In 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: ‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’. 2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate 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 Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission”. 8. As impugned order is not a speaking order, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the appeal by a speaking order. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 22.2.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. A/03/1947 - National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Uttam Sitaram Bagal & Anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide it afresh by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.7.2014.