Since the order passed by the State Commission is a non-speaking order inasmuch as it did not record any reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at, limited notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after recording reasons in support of -2- the conclusion arrived at. The State Commission being the first court of appeal is a court of fact and law. The State Commission was required to record reasons in support of conclusion arrived at. The State Commission has disposed of the appeal by observing that “the order of the District Forum is based on the facts of the case, which does not warrant any interference. Hence, the order dated 20.11.2008, passed by the District Forum, Camp at Jaipur is hereby affirmed. The appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.”” The State Commission being the first court of appeal was required to note down the contentions of the parties and record its findings based on evidence, which is not done in this case. The order of the State Commission being a non-speaking order 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 02.11.2011. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses. Petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent who died during the pendency of the revision petition. -3- Counsel for the respondent has handed over the cheque to the counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to issue a fresh cheque in the name of Mohd. Ismail Khan, legal heir of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner assures that a fresh cheque in the name of Mohd. Ismail Khan would be issued within a fortnight. | 
