PER MR. JUSTICE V.B.GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Savai Madhopur (short, istrict Forum vide order dated 16.12.2010, allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,167/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. 3. Being aggrieved by order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred (Appeal No.110 of 2011) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short ct before Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, tate Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself, vide order dated 13.5.2011 without giving any reason. It is further stated that, petitioner filed (Revision Petition No.2772 of 2011) before this Commission and challenged order dated 13.5.2011. This Commission vide order dated 24.5.2012, allowed the revision and remanded back the appeal to the State Commission, for deciding the same after giving due reasons. 4. After remand, State Commission again dismissed petitioner appeal, vide order dated 16.7.2012, without giving any reason. As such, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Counsel for respondent does not dispute these facts. 6. It is an admitted fact that earlier State Commission dismissed (Appeal No.110 of 2011) vide order dated 13.5.2011 and observed ; eeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no error in the order dated 16.12.2010 passed in complaint No.119 of 2007 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Savai Madhopur. The order of the District Forum is based on facts in which there is no need for interfere and the appeal of the appellant being without any force is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Forum, Savai Madhopur dated 16.12.2010 passed in complaint No.119/2007 are confirmed. 7. Against order dated 13.5.2011, petitioner preferred (Revision Petition No.2772 of 2011) before this Commission and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.5.2012. This Commission held ; fter perusal of the impugned order, we find that appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission by making general observations that there is no error in the order of the District Forum. Passing of a non-speaking order is against the principle of natural justice. Hence, we are incline to allow this appeal and to remand the matter at the admission stage itself. We, therefore, allow this petition. Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the State Commission with directions to consider the same on merits and to decide the same after giving due reasons. State Commission shall make endeavor to dispose of the appeal preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.7.2012. 8. After remand, State Commission again without giving any reason, dismissed petitioner appeal, vide impugned order dated 16.7.2012. Translated copy of the order states ; he present matter has been remand back from Honle National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 24.5.2012. Looking and the facts circumstances. We find in error in the judgment/Abroad passed by District Forum Sub by Madhopur in Case No.199 of 2007 passed on 16.12.2010. As the Abroad passed by the District Forum has been passed by deeply looking into the matter. We have it should be find that there is no point in interference. Abroad and hence, the present appeal against by dated 16.12.2010 passed in Case No.199 of 2007. Sd/- Sd/- (Sunita Ranka) (Ashok Parihar) Member, Chairman State Commission Consumer State Commission Consumer Disputes, Jaipur Disputes, Jaipur 9. Bare perusal of impugned order shows that, no reason whatsoever has been given by the State Commission. Honle Supreme Court in, HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 observed ; . At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows : n 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 : e have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellant 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. Issue notice for remand of the matter to the State Commission for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. 5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21.7.2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21.7.2000 after giving notice to the parties. 10. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 8811/2009, decided on 21.2.2011, Honle Apex Court held ; bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons. 11. In the present case, the State Commission inspite of specific directions given by this Commission, did not give any reason while deciding the appeal. In view of the dictum of Honle Supreme Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir and Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser (supra) we have no option but to allow the present revision petition. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and matter is again remanded back to the State Commission, with specific directions that it should consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving appropriate reasons. 12. State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. Present revision stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6.5.2013. Dasti to both parties.