Maintainability of revision petition defeated by lack of authorisation, unexplained delay, and defective service.

A revision petition filed without proper authorisation and signature, with no delegation of authority or rules of business shown, was held not maintainable. The Tribunal also noted that the petition was brought after an unexplained delay and that the petitioner had failed to effect valid service on the respondents, relying on an address it accepted was no longer correct. These defects were treated as going to the root of the proceeding and showed a casual, procedurally defective filing. The revision was therefore not entertained and was rejected on maintainability grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was maintainable in view of the absence of proper authorization and signature, the unexplained delay in filing, and the defective service on the respondents.

Analysis: The revision was filed long after the impugned adjudication order without any explanation for the delay. The petition was also presented in the name of an who had not signed it and for whom no delegation of authority or rules of business were produced to show competence to institute the proceeding. In addition, the petitioner failed to take effective steps to serve the respondents and relied on an address which it admitted was no longer correct. These defects went to the root of the proceeding and showed a casual and procedurally defective filing.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the revision and brought the proceeding to an end on procedural and maintainability grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision petition filed without proper authorization and signature, coupled with unexplained delay and material procedural defects, is not maintainable.

---