2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the State Commission, while deciding the petitioner appeal is a non-speaking one and the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever as on what basis it dismissed the appeal. 3. Petitioner/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct against the Respondents/Opposite Parties. 4. Respondents contested the same by filing their written statement. 5. After hearing, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (for short istrict Forum vide order dated 6.3.2012 partly allowed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Appeal (No.427 of 2012) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan,(for short, tate Commission which vide impugned order dated 28.5.2012, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on merits. 8. Hence, the present revision. 9. Impugned order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as under; eard the Ld. Counsels for the appellant and perused the case file carefully. The District Forum had rightly considered the entire facts and evidence in detail and passed the order. Therefore, we do not find any reason for re-investigating the facts and submissions of the case. Looking into the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Alwar in Complaint No.37/2011. Since, the Ld. District Forum had rightly gone through the facts brought on record which does not require any further intervention. Apart from this, there is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by District Forum, Alwar in Complaint No.37/2011 is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. For compliance of the order of the Forum, 30 days time is accorded. 10. After going through the above order, we are shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. The State Commission has not mentioned at all the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any submissions made by either of the parties. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeals. In this respect, we quote hereunder the law laid down by the Hon’ble Suprme Court of India in plethora of judgements. 12. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Honle 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 : e 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 13. 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". 14. Similarly in the present case also, the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the above decisions (supra) of the Honle 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 Honle Supreme Court. 15. The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably, within one year from the date of receipt of this order. 16. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.03.2014. 17. Dasti to all parties.