Authorisation, service, and reasonable time govern maintainability of a governmental revision petition filed without explanation.

A governmental revision petition must be filed by an officer shown to be authorised under the applicable rules of business; absent proof of delegation, the filing is procedurally improper and not maintainable. Proper service on all necessary respondents is also required; where respondents cannot be served and no oath-supported confirmation of correct addresses is given, maintainability is undermined. Even where no specific limitation period applies, the petition must be brought within a reasonable time; an unexplained delay of about six months was treated as unreasonable. The revisional petition was therefore dismissed on maintainability, service, and delay grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition was maintainable when filed by a Deputy Legal Adviser without shown authorisation; (ii) whether failure to serve all respondents rendered the revision petition not maintainable; (iii) whether filing the revision petition after about six months without explanation was beyond reasonable time.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition was maintainable when filed by a Deputy Legal Adviser without shown authorisation.

Analysis: The filing of the petition was treated as an executive act requiring authority under the applicable rules of business. No authorisation in favour of the Deputy Legal Adviser was placed on record, and no rule or delegation was shown to empower him to institute the revision. In the absence of demonstrated authority, the act of filing was held to be procedurally improper.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to serve all respondents rendered the revision petition not maintainable.

Analysis: The respondents could not be served despite repeated opportunities, and the revisionist did not affirm on oath that the addresses in the petition were correct. Effective service on all necessary respondents is a basic requirement for proceeding with the matter, and the unexplained inability to serve them supported dismissal.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether filing the revision petition after about six months without explanation was beyond reasonable time.

Analysis: Although no specific limitation period applied, the petition had to be filed within a reasonable time. The delay of about six months remained wholly unexplained, and the matter was not shown to involve any complexity requiring such delay. The unexplained lapse was treated as unreasonable.

Conclusion: The revision petition was liable to be dismissed for unexplained delay.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed on maintainability, service, and delay, and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental revisional petition must be instituted by an authorised officer, with proper service on necessary respondents, and within a reasonable time where no limitation period is prescribed.

---