Heard. Vide impugned order dated 25.4.2012, appeal of the petitioner pending before the State Commission, was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per record of the State Commission (proceedings of which have been placed at page 0 of the paper book of this Commission), on 27.1.2012 the matter was adjourned to 21.9.2012. Thus, there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear before the State Commission on 25.4.2012. On the other hand, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent that in the entire application for restoration filed by the petitioner before the State Commission and even in the grounds of revision, it has nowhere stated that the matter was listed before the State Commission for 21.9.2012. As apparent from the record, that is( page 80 of the paper book) the State Commission has listed the matter on 21.9.2012. I fail to understand that as to how the matter was taken up by the State Commission on 25.4.2012. Under these circumstances, there is patent irregularity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the appeal of the petitioner pending before the State Commission shall stand restored. The State Commission shall decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with provisions of law. Copy of this order be sent to the State Commission. Dasti.