Unauthorized appeal filing: a specifically directed authority cannot sub-delegate the filing power without legal permission.

An appeal was held unauthorized where the Board had directed the Commissioner to file it, but the Commissioner instead authorised an Assistant Commissioner to do so. The governing principle was that a specifically directed competent authority cannot sub-delegate the filing function unless law permits delegation. Because the person signing and filing lacked authority, the appeal was incompetent and failed at the threshold on maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order of the Commissioner, when the Board had directed the Commissioner to file the appeal, could validly be filed by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to a further authorisation by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The Board's direction required the Commissioner himself to file the appeal. The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to further delegate that authority to the Assistant Commissioner. The defect went to the competence of the person filing the appeal and rendered the appeal unauthorized.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed without authority of law and was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order failed at the threshold on maintainability, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent authority is specifically directed to file an appeal, that authority cannot sub-delegate the function to another officer unless such delegation is legally permitted.

---