Procedural maintainability and valid authorisation defeated a revision petition where service on respondents also remained unproved.

A revision petition filed in the name of the Enforcement Directorate was found procedurally defective because the record did not show any proved authority empowering the Assistant Legal Adviser to institute it under the applicable rules of business. The Tribunal also noted that effective service on the respondents had not been secured despite repeated opportunities, and the addresses supplied by the revisionist were not satisfactorily established. On these facts, the proceeding could not be sustained and the revision petition was held not maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was maintainable in the absence of proved authorization for filing it and in the face of failure to effect service on the respondents.

Analysis: The revision was filed in the name of the Enforcement Directorate, but the record did not show any authority empowering the Assistant Legal Adviser to institute it. In the absence of a demonstrated delegation under the applicable rules of business, the filing was treated as procedurally defective. The Tribunal also noted that effective service on the respondents had not been secured despite repeated opportunities, and the addresses supplied by the revisionist were not satisfactorily established. On these facts, the proceeding could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revision petition was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.

---