This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh Bhopal dated 04.07.2012 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner / OP No.3 and modified the order of the District Forum Bhopal to the extent that petitioner shall be liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced thus: “At the outset learned counsel for the complainant has quoted a judgment of this Commission dated 17th March 2009 in Appeal No.31/2008 ( Manager, M.P.Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam Vs. Ramkishan Jat) whereby in the similar facts and circumstances, the Seed Certification Agency had been held liable for 50% of the compensation. The compensation of Rs.40,267/- awarded by the District Forum with interest from the date of complaint @ 6% p.a. was fastened on all the parties and they were held collectively and severally liable. In appeal against the said order the award was upheld but it was directed that the Seed Certification Agency shall be liable only to the extent of 50% of compensation. Nothing has been shown to miligate against the view expressed in the said Appeal No. 31/2008 decided on 17th March 2009.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is violative of principles of natural justice for the reason that it does not address the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner. Thus, he has urged us to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits with reference to the facts of the case and grounds of appeal taken in the Memorandum of Appeal. 3. On perusal of the above noted observations of the State Commission it is evident that impugned order is cryptic and devoid of essential details like basic facts, the grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the District Forum and also the reasons for rejecting those grounds. Thus, in our view the impugned order is unsustainable being violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Shri Tarun Satija, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 & 2 and Shri B.S.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has fairly conceded that impugned order is cryptic and violative of principles of natural justice and they consented that impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. 5. In view of the above, we accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits with reference to facts of the case also the contention of the parties. This matter is pending since the year 2006. Therefore, we request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal on priority basis after due notice to the parties and if possible, within six months from the date of appearance of parties there. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.10.2013. | 
