PER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The Counsel for the Petitioner present. 2. The State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. FA/1107/2010 vide order dated 04.02.2013. The said order is reproduced as under: JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT: The appeal was called in the morning but no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Again it has been taken up in the post lunch session but again no one has appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The same is, therefore, dismissed in default. 3. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. 4. There is delay of 214 days in filing this Revision Petition against that order. The Counsel has moved an application for condonation of delay after various opportunities and costs being imposed. The application has been filed in this Commission today. 5. The delay is explained in the following Paras of the Application (Para 2, 3 and 4) 2. That on 07.09.2012 the applicant appeared before the LD. Punjab State Commission below and noted next date of hearing as 04.09.2013. However, on 04.09.2013 the case was not listed in cause list and the applicant came to know that the case has been dismissed in default vide order dated 04.02.2013. 3. That non appearance of the applicant on 04.02.2013 was neither intentional nor willful but due to reasons beyond control of the applicant. Thus under the legal advise the applicant moved an application dated 23.09.2013 for restoration of the appeal. But the said application was dismissed by the ld. State Commission below vide order dated 04.10.2013. 4. That the copy of the order dated 04.10.2013 was supplied to the applicant on 22.10.2013 and thereafter immediately the applicant has filed the revision petition. In the mean time there is delay of about 211 days which is neither intentional nor willful. However, in case the delay is counted from 04.10.2013 then there is no delay. Taking abundant precautions, the applicant is moving the present application. The delay from 04.10.2013 was due to wrong legal advice upon which the applicant bonafidely relied upon. 6. The Petitioner has not given any reasonable excuse for not appearing before the State Commission on 04.02.2013. According to his pleadings the date was granted to him after one year, but that is not believable. He should have asked time and again, why he has been given a date of one year. 7. The certified copy of the First Appeal clearly goes to show that the free copy was dispatched on 04.02.2013. After coming to know that the case was not listed on 04.09.2013 the application for restoration was moved on 23.09.2013 and the Review Petition was filed on 05.12.2013. The day to day delay has not been explained. It also appears that Registry of the State Commission does not work properly. Perhaps they do not know the law and rules enshrined in the CPA. The Petitioner has been issued a certified copy of the order on 01.11.2013 but is not indicated in the copy when the free copy was issued. The stamp itself is wrong. There should be a column when the free copy was issued. Perhaps all these facts were not brought to the notice of the President, of the State Commission Sh. Justice Gurdev Singh. 8. Under these circumstances, we call for an explanation from the Registrar and Superintendent, which would be given within one month and should be countersigned by the Ld. President Sh. Gurdev Singh so that all these facts could be brought to his notice. 9. In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541, the Honle Supreme Court have ruled that there is no provision for review in the CPA the said Petition cannot be heard by the State Commission. There is no such provision in the Act. 10. It is difficult to believe why the Review Petition was filed before the State Commission in the absence of any provision. It appears that the Petitioner wanted to delay the case unnecessarily. 11. There is a huge delay of 214 days which cannot be condoned. This view is supported from the various Supreme Court Authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramalingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfieldsw Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 12. There is no merit in this case. The case is hopelessly barred by time. The present Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.