Revisional authority and company objects determine maintainability and regulatory liability in challenge over investment allegation.

A revisional challenge is not maintainable when filed without valid authorization and after an unreasonable delay, because supervisory powers must be exercised by a duly authorised person within a reasonable period. The Department's revision therefore failed. On the substantive issue, the alleged violation based on investment in shares of an NRI company was unsustainable because the company's memorandum and record showed manufacturing and related activities, not oil exploration itself, and the earlier adjudicating order had already found no requirement of prior governmental permission on those facts. The appellate challenge succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the Department.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate was maintainable in the absence of proper authorization and within a reasonable time, and (ii) whether the allegation of violation arising from investment in shares of the NRI company was sustainable on the facts and the company's stated objects.

Issue (i): whether the revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate was maintainable in the absence of proper authorization and within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The impugned revision was filed long after the original order and at a stage when no appeal had been preferred within the prescribed time. The order also notes that the petition was presented through a Deputy Legal Adviser, while the record did not show valid authorization at the relevant time. The later governmental authorization could not cure the defect retrospectively. The Court applied the principle that where a statute does not prescribe an express limitation for a revisional or supervisory power, the power must still be exercised within a reasonable period and by a duly authorized person.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable and the challenge by the Department could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the allegation of violation arising from investment in shares of the NRI company was sustainable on the facts and the company's stated objects.

Analysis: The Court examined the memorandum and articles of association and the underlying record and found that the company was engaged in manufacturing and related activities, including equipment used in oil exploration, rather than the business of oil exploration itself. On that footing, the investment did not attract the prohibition relied upon by the Department. The earlier adjudicating order had itself dropped the charge after considering the materials and had recorded that prior governmental permission was not required on those facts. The Court therefore held that the proceedings had proceeded on a mistaken assumption and lacked a proper factual basis.

Conclusion: The allegation of regulatory violation was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the Department.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional or similar statutory challenge must be brought by a duly authorized person and within a reasonable time, and regulatory allegations founded on an incorrect understanding of the company's objects and business activity cannot be upheld.

---