JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "i) That the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 (Annexure P-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the impugned order dated 01.12.2011 (annexure P-8) may kindly be modified to the extent that the present respondent No.1 may kindly be held liable to pay the entire due/disputed amount instead of the 50%. iii) that this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of this case and pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the matter and issue appropriate direction. iv) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost. v) That any such other or further orders/ directions/ reliefs as may be fit and property in the light of facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed". 2. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that impugned order (Annexure P-8) passed by the Forum for redressal of grievances of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Consumers, Kusumpti Shimla-9, is not only cryptic, but is also an unreasoned and a non-speaking order. It is settled law that when a Quassi Judicial Authority or a Statutory Authority which is adjudicating upon the rights of the parties, is called upon to decide an issue, then the lis has to be decided by said Authority or Forum by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Order should be self speaking as to why the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Forum, has been so arrived at. The Order should spell out briefly the respective contentions of the parties, followed with the discussion viz-a-viz statutes, rules/ regulations and circular, if any, which have bearing on the said lis and thereafter, reasons have to be spelled out in the order as to why the view which has been taken by the Forum has been so taken. This is completely lacking in the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-8 will demonstrate that the same runs into 11 pages. Out of these 11 pages, 8 pages are devoted to the respective contentions of the parties. Last three pages deal with the observations and order. This is completely lacking in the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-8 will demonstrate that the same runs into 11 pages. Out of these 11 pages, 8 pages are devoted to the respective contentions of the parties. Last three pages deal with the observations and order. The findings which have been returned by the learned Tribunal upon the complaint of the present respondent are quoted hereinbelow:- " We observe that the audit is right in its observations. The respondent Board''s officials were negligent and issued two connection fully knowing that the PAC was issued for additional load only. In addition the Board field officials were well conversant with the factual position at sight which seems to be overlooked. The complainant company is equally negligent and got sanctioned new connection for 497.895 KW overlooking the fact that it has got PAC for 500 KW additional load only and not for new load. Thus it enjoyed the benefit of two number medium supply connections in place of one No.I.S-II combined tariff. By this act, the complaint company has also hidden facts while applying for another connection. On the basis of above observations, this forum is of the view that both the parties are equally negligent and equally responsible for this wrong application of tariff and thus must share the burden equally. We thus direct that the complainant company is liable to pay 50% of the disputed amount (i.e. Rs.9.92 lacs only) to the respondent Board". 4. A perusal of the above findings demonstrates that there is no discussion worth its name on the respective contentions of the parties leading to the findings which have been so returned. To say the least, this demonstrates that there was no due application of judicial mind before passing of the impugned order and this in fact defeats the very purpose of the constitution of the said Forum, especially keeping in view the fact that the orders are so passed by the said Forum, have finality attached with them as they can only be assailed in the High Court by way of a writ petition, where the scope of judicial review is very limited. 5. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties submit that rather than setting aside the order and leaving the matter at rest thereof, it will be in the interest of justice in case after setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the Forum concerned, with the direction to decide the complaint afresh on the basis of the pleadings already on record after affording opportunity of hearing to the stake holders. Ordered accordingly. 6. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by setting aside Annexure P-8 i.e. order dated 01.01.2012, passed by the Forum for redressal of grievances of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Consumers. The matter is remanded back to the said Forum with the direction to adjudicate upon the complaint filed before it by the private respondent afresh after hearing all the parties and by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The order shall be passed on the basis of the pleadings which are already on record before the learned Forum. 7. As prayed for, the amount which the respondent has already paid to the Electricity Board, shall abide by the final decision of the Forum. In other words, the petitionerBoard shall not force the respondent to pay any additional disputed sum during the pendency of the complaint before the learned Forum, nor the respondent shall press the petitionerBoard to release the money which it has paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the complaint. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.