Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President

Heard Adv. Pravartak Pathak on behalf of the Appellant.  On perusal of the record it is evident that on 24/1/2012 upon hearing Adv. Pravartak Pathak for the Appellant, the appeal was admitted and this Commission had directed to issue notice after admission returnable on 10/4/2012 to the Respondent through State Commission by RPAD at the cost of the Appellant.  Thus, sufficient time of four months was granted to the Appellant to take appropriate steps for service of notice to the Respondent.  However, for the reasons best known to the Appellant compliance of said order dated 24/1/2012 was not made.  Appeal thereafter appeared before this Commission on 10/4/2012.  On that date Appellant as well as Learned Advocate for the Appellant remained absent.  However, in the interest of justice appeal was adjourned to 17/7/2012 upon recording that steps have not been taken by the Appellant to comply with the earlier directions dated 24/1/2012 as regards issuance of notice after admission to the Respondent.  Even today Learned Advocate for the Appellant is seeking time to comply with the order dated 24/1/2012.  However, there are no valid reasons assigned by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant for seeking time.  Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Commission.  No order as to costs.

Pronounced and dictated on 17^th July, 2012