(Passed On 12/01/2016)

         None is present for the applicant. Perusal of the record and proceeding of the application shows that this Commission issued notice dated 26/10/2015 to the applicant by Registered Post A.D. on 31/10/2015 on its same address given in the application by the applicant. The said notice is returned unserved with postal endorsement as ‘Refused’  to take due to difference in the name of the addressee. Thus, we are satisfied that the notice has been duly served to the applicant as he refused to take it. Moreover it is also seen that the original appeal bearing No. 1228/1999 filed before this Commission by the applicant came to be dismissed in default on 6/8/2007 as the appellant/applicant failed to appear for hearing. Therefore the applicant has moved the present application for restoration of that appeal by setting aside the said order dated 6/8/2007. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another reported in 2012 (2) MHLJ 1. It has laid down that the District Forum and State Commission has no power to set aside their own order and power of review. Therefore the present application made for setting aside the order dated 6/8/2007 passed by this Commission in the appeal is not tenable in law. Thus the application is dismissed.