Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the  applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned  counsel, appearing for the respondent.

                       This is an application for restoration of First Appeal No.64/2014 to its original file by setting aside the order dated 06-08-2015 whereby and where under the First Appeal No.64/2014 was dismissed by the commission for non-prosecution.

                      We have perused the statement made on oath in the Misc application as well as the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent. Also heard the submission made by the respective  counsel.

                      During  the  course of argument Mr. Choudhury has relied on the judgment in the  case of New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs R. Srinivasan reported in (2000)3 SCC 242 and has submitted  that in view of the  decision in R.Srinivasan (Supra), in the Commission has the power to restore the appeal.

                       At this point, however, Mr. Acharya has submitted that the Misc. Application is not even maintainable in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar and others reported in (2011)9 SCC 541 wherein  the Honble Supreme Court, while discussing the newly inserted Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act.1986, has held that power of recall is vested only with the National Commission but not with the  State Commission and District Forums.He has further stated that in fact, Srinivasan (Supra) has been overruled by Rajeev Hitendra Pathak (supra).

                     We have carefully analysed the submission and the caselaws cited by the learned counsels for the parties. We note that in view of the decision rendered by the Honble  Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak (Supra), the Commission does not  have the power recall its orders.

                        It is therefore clear that the Commission cannot recall its order dated 06.08.2015 whereby it has dismissed the First Appeal No.64/2014 for non-prosecution and restore the said first Appeal to its file.

                       Thus, in our considered opinion the instant application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in view of the  decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak (supra),

                       Accordingly, this application is dismissed.