The petitioners are aggrieved of dismissal of their appeal by the State Commission in default due to non-appearance on the date of hearing. Shri B.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 27.2.2012 which reads thus: - he list has been revised. Though the list was uploaded on the website of the Commission and was shown on the internet and despite sufficient notice none is present on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing today. Sri R.K. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent is present. In view of the above, therefore, it appears that the appellant is not interested in proceeding with this appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed in default of the appellant for non-prosecution. Learned counsel submits that bare reading of the impugned order would show that the notice of revised date of hearing was not served on the appellants/petitioners as such the order dismissing the appeal in default is not sustainable. Shri Sanchar Anand, Advocate for the respondent has fairly conceded that dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution was uncalled for. He however submits that this is a very old matter, therefore, the State Commission should be requested to expedite the disposal of appeal. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. We request the State Commission to make an endeavor to dispose of the appeal within two months. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 5.2.2013.