State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner without recording any reasons.  State Commission simply endorsed the view taken by the District Forum.  Limited Notice was issued to the respondent for 23.1.2012 to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  In spite of due service, respondent did not appear on 23.1.2012.  The case was adjourned for today to enable the respondent to put in appearance.  Office was directed to inform the respondent about the adjourned date of hearing with a note that in case he does not appear on the next date of hearing, he would be proceeded ex parte and the revision petition disposed of in his absence.

        Respondent has been duly served.  Litigation expenses have also been paid.  Respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

        On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order.  State Commission, being the court of fact as well as law, was required to record reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at.  State Commission has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the basis of the finding recorded by the District Forum.  State Commission has not even spelt out the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.  Order of the State Commission, being non-speaking, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

        Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27^th April 2012.

        State Commission is directed to decide the appeal after effecting due service on the respondent.