JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. 2. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by the State Commission. The impugned order runs as follows: “26-07-2011 -2- The case called out. None is present on behalf of the parties despite the cause list of date has been shown on internet through the Commission’s website. The appellant’s counsel Sri Parul Bajpai is not available. It appears that the appellant is not now interested in proceeding with this appeal. Let it, therefore, be dismissed in default of the appellant and for non-prosecution.” 3. This case again belongs to the State Commission, U.P. We have perused the original file, requisitioned from the State Commission. There are so many such like cases, where we have already decided that such like orders passed by the State Commission are not legally tenable. It is also not clear who were the members at that time. The record reveals that on 10.5.2010, the case was fixed before Mr. S.A.A. Rizvi and Mr. R. P. Singh, Members of the State Commission. They ordered sending of the notice for 15.9.2010. The proceedings of 15.9.2010 were never recorded. It is also not clear whether the notice was served upon the respondent or not. Out of blue, the file was taken up on 26.7.2011 after 15.9.2010. -3- There is no evidence worth the name that the service of the notices was affected upon both the parties. The proof of service hinges upon the cause list on the internet. 4. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not permit such like service. The State Commission has passed an impetuous order. This order is held to be unreasonable, perverse and unsustainable as it was passed without following the procedure as laid down by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first and the foremost duty of the State Commission is to see whether both the parties have been served or not served. The State Commission should proceed further after satisfying that both the parties are properly served in accordance with law. 5. Now we come to the conduct and behavior of the Chairman/Commissioner, Lucknow Development Authority. The petitioner, too, has behaved in laggardly manner. The case was dismissed in default on 26.7.2011. The Chairman does not know that first appeal was dismissed till a period of three years. This shows abysmal, extremely bad performance on the part of the petitioner/opposite party. This revision petition was filed after the -4- delay of 926 days. As compared to the private companies, the Administrative Government Officers are proving to be a burden on the exchequer of this country. 5. However, in the interest of justice, we hereby restore the case. There is no need to serve the respondent in this revision petition because there is no proof that she was served in this case. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 1.8.2014 and the State Commission is directed to serve the parties i.e. respondent/Smt. Purnima Mishra in this case as per law. The revision petition stands disposed of. | 
