1. First Appeal No.256 of 2009 has been filed before us by Islamic Academy of Education Religious Minority Trust, Original Complainant before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had recorded that since the matter pertains to alleged breach of contract the remedy for it is to approach the Civil Court and not by way of filing a complaint before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the Appellant/Complainant to approach the civil Court if it was so advised. 2. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the State Commission had disposed of its appeal through a non-speaking order without listing the reasons for relegating the parties to the Civil Court and, therefore, the case be remanded to the State Commission to be re-decided on merits. 3. Counsel for the Respondents opposed the above contention and stated that the Appellant is unnecessarily trying to delay the issue. In fact, it had filed a Writ Petition against the order of the State Commission, which had taken several years to conclude and thereafter the Honle High Court had disposed of its Writ Petition by stating as follows :- . The material on record would clearly show that even as per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant alleges breach of contract by the opposite parties. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is passed in original Complaint No. 23/2007 and the order passed by the State Commission impugned in the Writ Petition can be challenged in appeal before the National Commission in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When an effective and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is provided to the writ petitioner to approach the National Commission by way of appeal, we do not find any ground to interefere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this writ petition and pass the following Order:- The Writ Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the National Commission against the impugned order passed by the State Commission in complaint No.23/2007 dated 02.08.2007. All the contentions urged in the writ petition are kept open to be urged before the Appellate Authority. It was, therefore, prayed that this appeal may not be remanded to the State Commission and be decided by this Commission on merits. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly the order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order since no reasons have been given by the State Commission to reach the conclusion that the case cannot be decided through summary proceedings before the Consumer Fora. Further, the issues on which detailed recording of evidence was considered necessary have not been listed out by the State Commission. We note that Counsel for the Respondents has filed case-laws in support of his contention that the case may not be remanded to the State Commission and instead be decided by this Commission. We have gone through the said case-laws and find that the Counsel for the Respondents has not been able to point out how the said cases are applicable to the instant case. On the other hand, the State Commission being a first Court of fact in this case was required to notice the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties and arrive at a decision by recording reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The Honle Supreme Court in a number of judgments, including in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 496] has held that judicial and quasi-judicial courts/authorities are required to pass speaking orders. In Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjivan Parshad [(2008) 5 SCC 539], the Honle Supreme Court went to the extent of saying that reasons introduce clarity to the order and failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. 5. Respectfully, following the judgments of the Honle Supreme Court, we remand the matter to the State Commission for consideration afresh regarding admissibility of the case and if concluded by the State Commission that it is admissible then on the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further directions on 21.04.2014.