On perusal of the impugned order dated 08.11.2012, we find that the order rejecting the application for recall of the earlier order dated 24.01.2006 has been passed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekakar & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 35 (NC). Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error or illegality in the aforesaid order. 2. The present revision in effect is, therefore, against the order of the State Commission dated 24.01.2006 whereby the State Commission Uttar Pradesh dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner for non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the absence of the petitioner before the State Commission on 24.01.2006 was unintentional and it was because of the circumstances not within the control of the petitioner. It is argued that appeal was being pursued on behalf of the petitioner company by its Director Moti Lal Goel. Said Moti Lal Goel was arrested in a criminal case in the year 2005 and since he was under detention, he could not appear before the State Commission on hearing dated 24.01.2006 and could not give instructions to the counsel Sh. Rakesh Sharma . 4 We are not satisfied with the above explanation for the reason that the petitioner admittedly is a private limited company. Even if Sh. Moti Lal Goel was under detention, other director or some employee of the company could easily have attended the date of hearing before the State Commission. Admittedly, the appeal was filed through Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. There is no explanation as to why said advocate did not appear on the relevant date of hearing. Even the affidavit of the counsel has not been filed. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission dated 24.01.2006 after an inordinate delay of more than six years. Further, as per the allegations in the application for recall of order dated 24.01.2006, Sh. Moti Lal Goel, Director was released in May 2012 but the application for recall was moved much later after 31.10.2012. There is no explanation as to why after his release on bail, Moti Lal Goel Director of the petitioner company waited till 31.10.2012 to enquire about the fate of his appeal. The conduct of the petitioner throughout has been negligent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 24.01.2006 and 08.11.2012 which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is dismissed.