Heard. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, impugned order passed by State Commission is contrary to law, facts and material on record as it is a non-speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been given while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 3. Translated copy of the impugned order read as under ; he counsel for the appellant was heard for admission and perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances we do not find any ground for interfere in the order dated 31.01.2011 of the District Forum, Sikar passed in the complaint case No.181/2009 and the appeal of the appellants are liable to be dismissed. Hence the order in case No.181/2009 passed by the District Forum, Sikar is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited before the District Forum, Sikar including earned profit, be adjusted with the amount to be paid to the complainant. The appellant is granted one month time to comply with the last order. Sd/-illegible Sd/-illegible (Sikandar Punjabi) (Ashok Parihar) Member President 4. A bare perusal of impugned order shows that no reasons whatsoever, has been recorded therein. 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 Redressla 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. 5. 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 observed ; 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. 6. In the case in hand also, State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal. 7. In view of the above law laid down by Honle Supreme Court, we allow the present revision petition. Impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons. 8. State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Present revision stand disposed off accordingly. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.4.2013. 11. Dasti in addition.