1. The case was dismissed in default by the State Commission on 18.5.2012. The said order is reproduced as under: “The Cause List has been completed. Nobody has appeared from the side of the appellant at the time of hearing despite the uploading of the cause list on the website of the Commission and it being shown on the internet and despite sufficient notice. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in the prosecution of the appeal. Therefore due to non-appearance of the appellant the appeal is dismissed due to non-prosecution.” 2. This is a novel procedure adopted by the State Commission to provide the service through website. This is not recognized by any Rule. The State Commission should have sent the notices separately to the parties. The parties can look at the site but some parties are not able to look at the website. There appears be no fault of the petitioner. 3. The appeal is restored to its original number. There is delay of 71 days. We can assume that such like delay is reasonable and just because limitation will start from the date of knowledge. Under the circumstances mentioned above, we restore the case before the State Commission without any condition. 4. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.4.2013. It is also made clear that the respondent has not appeared despite service. The State Commission will send the notice to him. 5. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
