JUDGMENT : MIR DARA SHEKO, J. 1. None appears to represent the opposite party despite service of notice, while Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chakraborty, represents the petitioners in both the revisional applications. The applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are taken up for hearing and for disposal on merit at the instance of Mr. Bhattacharya. Mr. Bhattacharya invited attention of this Court to the very first order dated August 26, 2016 passed by this Court, while admitting the revisional applications, and submitted that the impugned order dated July 25, 2016 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal No. A/640/2016 is liable to be set aside by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, since the applications bearing objections as raised by the petitioners were not attended to and not considered on merit and by passing the orders impugned without reasons rendered injustice in the decision-making process. 2. Perused the materials on record and the orders impugned-July 25, 2016 and August 8, 2016. 3. It appears that both the impugned orders have been emanated as a result of an ex parte order dated October 9, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Coach Behar in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2015 against the petitioners. The operative part of the order dated October 9, 2015 is set out below:-- "The present complaint be and the same is allowed in ex-parte with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 3,00,000/- the deposited amount along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agonies and for deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above order jointly and/or severally within 456 days failing of which the Opposite Parties shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day's delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules." 4. 50/- for each day's delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules." 4. Being aggrieved by such order and alleging accrual of knowledge about the same as contended, inter alia, the petitioners filed the first appeal before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The State Commission by Order No. 1 dated July 25, 2016 declined to admit the appeal by recording five sentences which are set out below:-- "Ld. Advocate for the Appellants is present and heard on the point of admission. Appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 252 days beyond the statutory period. The cause of delay as submitted is not at all satisfactory. It is very much apparent that these Appellants did not appear before the Ld. District Forum, although properly noticed. Accordingly, appeal is not admitted and stands rejected." 5. This Court is apprised that the aforesaid first appeal was presented along with an application praying for condonation of delay of 252 days. But the order of the State Commission, as quoted above, does not show any indication about consideration of the grounds of delay, or, even the reasons ass assigned in support not appearing before the District Forum when the matter was called for hearing. Had there been adjudication of the application proposing condonation of delay as Well as the application for restoration of the ex parte order on merit supported by reasons, whatever it would be, obviously then within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution this Court would have no occasion to think of making any interference therein as there would be efficacious remedy before the National Commission, and in that event of course the instant proceeding could have been held as not maintainable. But, on the other hand, only five sentences under reference really are surprising as to how the same can be sustained as a decisive order in the hand of the State Commission which is not supported by any discussion or logic as to why the cause of delay, as urged, was held to be not all satisfactory. But, on the other hand, only five sentences under reference really are surprising as to how the same can be sustained as a decisive order in the hand of the State Commission which is not supported by any discussion or logic as to why the cause of delay, as urged, was held to be not all satisfactory. The State Commission is the creature of a statute to perform its adjudicatory function within the frameworks of the provisions. Therefore, the State Commission also may take consideration of the given fact to condone the delay, or otherwise, subject to weighing also the merit of the main matter. Meaning thereby, if there is merit in that main matter, then the delay of the erring party may be condoned if such delay is substantially explained to the satisfaction of the Court, in that case it may be no matter if such delay would have caused for three days or three months or three years or so on and so forth that in hand by the State Commission a proceeding like the first appeal has been delayed in such a manner which obviously to the estimation of this Court as caused abrupt derailment in the decision-making process which requires interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Obviously again the other impugned order dated August 8, 2016 under reference has been emanated from the aforesaid ex parte order passed by the District Forum which is still subsisting. Said order dated August 8, 2016 is also set out below:-- "Ld. Advocate for the Appellants is present and heard on the point of admission. There is no merit in the present appeal. Considering all aspects in the matter, the appeal is not admitted and stands rejected." From the above order also this Court took note that by two sentences the State Commission held that there was no merit in the appeal. The State Commission while in seisin of such first appeal it had every jurisdiction to answer either to affirm or to set aside the order under challenge, or, to send back the matter on remand, whatever the circumstances would so demand, subject to adjudication under Section 15 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on condonation of delay, or otherwise, with adequate reasons in support of the decision. It is again redundant to mention that the adjudicating authority that too in an appeal, while would pass the order or judgment, shall be self-speaking rather self-contained which would be legible about the logic or reasons by which the decision at which it so arrived. But by the aforesaid order bearing only two sentences there cannot be any occasion to take note as to how the merit of the appeal was measured or adjudicated by the State Commission. Therefore, again this Court within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution has to interfere also for setting aside the order dated August 8, 2016. This Court once again inclines to clarify that had there been logical order deciding on merit, this Court would not interfere perhaps with the observation that there was no lapses in the decision-making process and since the efficacious remedy would be available under Section 19 or 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the, instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be maintainable. But detection about the impugned orders having been noticed to be otherwise interference is required to oversee the matter, Complained of, since there was adjudication following norms under Section 15 read with Section 17 of the Act. 7. Now to sum up the observations of this Court it is held that the adjudicating authority is always duty bound to answer the application or complaint or appeal, whatever it may be, by adequate reasonings against which the aggrieved party may take further legal steps as would be available under the special statute.- But in view of the above observations, while both the orders impugned are found virtually are devoid of reasonings and thereby the State Forum having not discharged its statutory obligations by expressing logical order, both the orders impugned dated August 8, 2016 passed in First Appeal No. A/665/2016 and dated July 25, 2016 in First Appeal No. A/640/2016 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are set aside and quashed. 8. Accordingly, the revisional applications-CO No. 3186 of 2016 with CO No. 3189 of 2016 - are allowed with direction to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to hear out the appeals under reference afresh on merit Upon notice to the other sides at an early date as will be convenient to it and dispose of the same with order supported by reasons on merit. 9. 9. No order as to costs. 10. The department is directed to send a copy of this order to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal with reference to First Appeal No. A/640/2016 and First Appeal No. A/665/2016 for information and to act accordingly. 11. Learned Advocate for the petitioners is also given liberty to obtain certified xerox of such order on priority basis and to submit the same along with an appropriate application before the State Commission. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.