Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent, which is taken on record.

2.   Heard.

3.   Vide order dated 13.06.2014 of this Commission, a sum of Rs.7,500/- was ordered to be remitted to the respondent by way of demand draft in her name, directly being travelling and allied expenses. Counsel for petitioners states that they have already remitted the aforesaid amount to the respondent.

4.  Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand states, that she is not aware as to whether respondent has received the aforesaid amount or not.

5.  Respondent/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III, Jaipur (for short, ‘District Forum’)alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties for cancelling the allotment of the LIG House of the respondent without any basis.

6.  Petitioners contested the complaint and denied the allegations made by the respondent.

7.  District Forum, vide order dated 02.01.2014, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to restore the LIG House within one month after making the allotment of the said house to the respondent and hand over the possession to the respondent and execute the necessary documents.

8.  Being aggrieved, petitioners filed (Appeal No.280 of 2014) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’),which vide its impugned order dated 05.05.2014, dismissed the same.

9.  Hence, the present revision.

10. Main contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners is, that the State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, while deciding the appeal. Thus, the impugned order is a non-speaking one.

11. Relevant portion of translated copy of the impugned order read as under;

 “ The Subordinate District Forum examined minutely all the facts and evidences of the of the dispute and thereafter passed the order. There is no reason in re-examining all the facts and evidence of the District Forum by us. Looking into the facts and circumstances, no error was detected in the order dated 02.01.2014 passed in dispute no.199/2012 (1040/2008) of Ld. District Forum Jaipur-III, Jaipur has reasonable relief has been provided by the District Forum to the complainant with true discretion on the facts of the record which need no interference. As well as there appears on merits in the appeal.

   Otherwise also Consumer Protection Act has been enforced for immediate and easy disposal of the consumer disputes. The Consumer expects immediate and easy disposal of the consumer disputes. The Consumer expects immediate adjudication of his dispute. Therefore, general judicial procedure has been kept away from Act, 1986. District Forum and Commission have to make quick disposal of the dispute and the appeal in accordance with the principle of natural justice. If the Commission, District Forum do not find any error in the relief given on the finding issued with discretion on the basis of evidence and documents available on the file, then there is no need to reanalyse all facts and evidence in accordance with a spirit of Section 3 of the Act, 1986. It is true that to act with the time the provision of this Act in addition to the provision of another law may not be available anywhere.

The Ld. Advocate for the appellant urged that the house allotted previously to the respondent-complainant was given to some other person, but in this connection appellant did not produce any evidence and facts in the appeal and in the district Forum. Thus, the order dated 02.01.2014 passed in Dispute No.199/2012(1040/2008) by District Forum-III, Jaipur is upheld and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits. The liberty is given to the appellant to get refund of the amount if deposited before the District Forum. For compliance of the order of the Forum one months’ time is given to the appellant from today”.  

12.  After going through the impugned order, we find that no reason whatsoever has been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. The State Commission has not discussed at all the facts of the case nor it has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

13.  In this regard, we would like to apprise the State Commission about the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements.

14. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held;

"4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows;

In 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 :

‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal 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”.

15.  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, Hon'ble Apex Court observed;

"A 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".

16. Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. In view of the above decisions (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal. Therefore, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission, to decide the same afresh in accordance with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

17.  The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably, within one year from the date of receipt of this order.

18.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.10.2014.

19. It is also clarified that order dated 13.06.2014, passed by this Commission must be complied with by the petitioners, on or before the next date of hearing before the State Commission.

20. Dasti to both parties.