Effective communication of revision proceedings required a merits hearing after delayed notice and disputed notification applicability.

Effective communication of revision proceedings was required before the affected party could be denied a merits hearing. The notes state that notice was served after the stipulated period and that no material showed subsequent communication of the pending revision through the jurisdictional officer. Because the earlier revision order relied on notifications whose applicability was disputed, the delay in filing the review petition was condoned and the petitioner was given an opportunity to contest the revision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the review petition should be condoned and the earlier revision order restored for merits consideration after the review petitioner was not shown to have received effective communication of the proceedings.

Analysis: Notice in the revision was served beyond the period stipulated in it, and no material established that the pendency of the revision was subsequently communicated to the review petitioner through the jurisdictional officer. As the earlier revision order had allowed the revision by relying on notifications whose applicability was disputed, a merits hearing was warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the review petitioner was granted an opportunity to contest the revision on merits.

---