Locus standi in appellate challenge: non-party petitioner could not assail an order exonerating the Bank and its officer.

The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's appellate order because it was neither a noticee before the Enforcement Directorate nor a party to the appeal between the Bank and its officer. No legal basis was shown for impleadment, and the order only exonerated the Bank and its officer from penalty without determining any liability against the petitioner. The alleged seizure of the petitioner's account was outside the adjudication and appellate proceedings and was treated as an independent grievance. The availability of a statutory appeal was also noted as a separate remedy. The challenge was therefore held not maintainable, and non-impleadment caused no legal prejudice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order passed in appeals between the Bank and its officer and whether non-impleadment of the petitioner in those appeals vitiated the order.

Analysis: The petitioner was neither a noticee before the Enforcement Directorate nor a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. No provision or principle was shown to entitle the petitioner to be impleaded in the appeals. The impugned order only exonerated the Bank and its officer from penalty and did not determine any liability against the petitioner. The alleged seizure of the petitioner's account was not the subject matter of either the adjudication order or the appellate order, and any grievance in that regard was held to be independent. The existence of a statutory appeal against the Tribunal's order was also noted as a separate remedy.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the challenge, and non-impleadment caused no legal prejudice; the petition was not maintainable.

---