ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 dated 22nd June, 2010, whereby, this petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of sixty days, failing which, interest @ 10% per annum till realisation has also been granted. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by this order, original respondent No. 2 of First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 has preferred this writ petition mainly for the reasons that: (a) District Consumer Forum has passed an order in Complaint Case No. 226 of 2004 dated 21st April, 2008, whereby, complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 in this writ petition was dismissed. An appeal was to be preferred within 30 days as per 1st proviso to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was admittedly filed much later in point of time as First Appeal No. 240 of 2008. Thereafter, delay condonation application was preferred, but, neither the same was argued out nor the same was condoned and the First Appeal was decided in favour of the complainant by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi. (b) As per the supplementary affidavit filed by this petitioner, in fact the date of hearing was given in the First Appeal one by one and lastly on 9th February, 2009. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner had gone to the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but, as the file was misplaced, he was advised to come later on and, thereafter, on 22nd June, 2010 impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is ex-parte, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without appreciating the merit of the case especially that there was difference in reports given by two laboratories and no fault lies on the part of this petitioner to give medicine of Malaria on the basis of detailed symptom narrated by the patient original complainant respondent No. 2. (c) Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice and, hence, this writ petition is tenable at law. 2. (c) Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice and, hence, this writ petition is tenable at law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that without condonation of delay, the First Appeal cannot be decided on the merits of the case. Even otherwise also, on merit no fault lies on the part of this petitioner doctor because medicine of Malaria was given as per the narration of symptom given by the patient original complainant. In fact, looking to the order passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is thoroughly a non-speaking order, so far as this petitioner is concerned because in paragraph 10 only one line reasoning has been given, which reads as under: "We further find and hold that OP No. 2, Dr. Mishra failed to take care before prescribing the complainant for Malaria." This is the only reasoning given for imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/ with interest @ 10% per annum and in earlier paragraphs there is narration of two reports given by two different laboratories, with which, this petitioner is not concerned, at all. Hence, the order passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (original complainant), who has mainly submitted that how respondent No. 2 was given medicine of Malaria initially by this petitioner and, thereafter, he was sent for medical test, to be carried out by the pathological laboratory No. 1 and later on by pathological laboratory No. 2 by another doctor and there is contradictory reports given by pathological laboratory no. 1 and pathological laboratory No. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also taken this Court to National Drug Policy for Malaria and on the basis of this Policy, it is submitted that this petitioner could not have given medicine of Malaria without there being any test. Reasons : 4. 1 and pathological laboratory No. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also taken this Court to National Drug Policy for Malaria and on the basis of this Policy, it is submitted that this petitioner could not have given medicine of Malaria without there being any test. Reasons : 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 dated 22nd June, 2010 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 226 of 2004 before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi. This complaint case was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 21st April, 2008. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 was preferred by respondent No. 2 (original complainant) on 25th June, 2008, which is beyond the period of limitation as per 1st proviso to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the matter was kept for further hearing on different dates and lastly on 9th February, 2009, it was kept for filing of the written notes of arguments, looking to the supplementary affidavit filed by this petitioner in this writ petition. It appears that on 9th February, 2009, when the counsel for the petitioner had gone to file notes of written arguments, he was conveyed that the file was misplaced and he was advised to come later on after few days. It also appears that abruptly an order was passed on 22nd June, 2010 without hearing the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice. No rejoinder affidavit of the supplementary affidavit filed by this petitioner in this writ petition, has been filed by respondent No. 2. 5. It also appears that abruptly an order was passed on 22nd June, 2010 without hearing the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice. No rejoinder affidavit of the supplementary affidavit filed by this petitioner in this writ petition, has been filed by respondent No. 2. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 dated 22nd June, 2010 and we remand the matter to the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi to decide afresh First Appeal No. 240 of 2008 on its own merit and on the basis of evidences on record and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this petitioner. 6. As the matter is being remanded to the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi, we are not observing anything on merits. 7. This writ petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of.