Appeal maintainability depends on whether the impugned communication is an adjudication order, not a mere administrative letter.

An appeal to the Tribunal did not lie against a communication signed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) because he was not the adjudicating authority. The impugned letter was treated as an administrative, interlocutory communication rather than an appealable adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. On that basis, the Tribunal held the appeal to be not maintainable and declined to entertain the stay petition as well.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay to the Tribunal against the letter/order passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication), and whether such order was appealable and maintainable before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The impugned communication was signed by the Superintendent (Adjudication), who was not the adjudicating authority in the matter. The order was characterised as an administrative and interlocutory communication, not an order passed by the Commissioner, and therefore not one that could be appealed before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and the stay petition also could not be entertained.

---