Delay of 21 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Mr. Kalpesh Das, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of contesting respondent no.1. 

-2-

Respondents no.2 and 3 were the opposite parties before the District Forum with the petitioner and the petitioner does not claim any relief against them.  Service on respondents no.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

With the consent of counsel of parties, this revision petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on merits and on the ground of delay of             25 days in filing the appeal as well as on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared before the District Forum.  Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had appeared before the District Forum as noticed in para 6 of the order of District Forum. 

          Delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission is condoned. 

          State Commission has committed a factual error in saying that the petitioner had not appeared before the District Forum or led any evidence.  From the reading of para 6 of the order of District Forum, it is clear that the petitioner filed its Written Statement as well as led

-3-

evidence, which had not been taken into consideration by the State Commission.  Order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order.  The State Commission being the first court of law is required to record reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it, which has not been done in the present case.  Order of the State Commission being the non-speaking is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission with a direction to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law after hearing counsel for the parties.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.2.2011.