Section 35B(2) authorisation must reflect conscious application of mind; routine approval by the Additional Collector made the appeal not maintainable.

Section 35B(2) requires the Collector to form an independent opinion that the order appealed against is not legal or proper before directing an appeal. Where the authorisation was issued by the Additional Collector and the record showed only routine signing of the draft without conscious application of mind to the legality or propriety of the order, the authorisation was defective and the appeal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable where the authorisation to file it was issued by the Additional Collector and the note sheet did not show proper application of mind under section 35B(2).

Analysis: The statutory requirement under section 35B(2) is that the Collector must form an opinion that the order appealed against is not legal or proper before directing filing of an appeal. The authorisation in this case was issued by the Additional Collector, and the record showed only a routine signing of the draft without a conscious decision on the legality or propriety of the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The authorisation was defective and the appeal was not maintainable.

---