Mr. K.D. Sharma, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent which is taken on record. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission U.P., Lucknow dated 23.2.2012 dismissing the first appeal of the petitioner with following observations: ist is being revised. Even cause List is being uploaded on the web site of the Commission and shown on the internet and after the proper intimation no one has appeared on behalf of both the parties at the time of hearing. Hence it is very clear from the above that the Appellant is not interested in contesting the process of present appeal. However, the present appeal is dismissed in non-prosecution in absence of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission without even informing the parties about the date of hearing. On reading of the impugned order the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. -3- Therefore, in my opinion the impugned order is violative of principle of natural justice as such not sustainable. Otherwise also, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that respondent has no objection if the revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits. In view of the above, revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits after giving due hearing to the parties. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2013.