Central Government is only an aggrieved party.

JUDGEMENT:- The above appeal has been filed by the Director of Enforcement against the order dated 13th Dec. 1974 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein and setting aside the order of adjudication of the Deputy Director of Enforcement, dated 28th August 1972 holding the respondents guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5000 on each of the respondents.

2. The appellant, the Director of Enforcement, has filed the appeal claiming himself to be aggrieved against the said order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents herein as to the maintainability of the appeal by the Director of Enforcement. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is tow-fold, (1) Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973, it is only the Central Government which can be taken to be aggrieved against the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under Section 54 of the Act, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and the Director of Enforcement who passed the initial order of adjudication cannot file the appeal treating himself as an aggrieved person; (2) The Director of Enforcement being himself a quasi judicial Tribunal passing an order of adjudication cannot be, in any event, taken to be aggrieved against the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board reversing his decision, and, that, therefore, this appeal filed by the Director of Enforcement cannot, in any event, be maintained.

3. These preliminary objections have been raised even at the earlier stage when the appeal was being heard by Sathiadev, J. Taking note of these objections, the appellant, Director of Enforcement has chosen to file C.M.P. No. 12251 of 1979 seeking an amendment of the cause title in the memorandum of appeal grounds by substitution of the name of the appellant as 'The Government of India, represented by the Director of Enforcement' instead of the original appellant 'Director of Enforcement'. Though the said petition purports to be an innocuous one for amendment of the cause title in the memorandum of grounds, it really amounts to the substitution of a new appellant in the place of the original appellant, the Director of Enforcement whose rights to file and maintain an appeal against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board has been questioned. In para 12 of the affidavit in support of the said petition for amendment, it has been stated that though the appellant's name is shown as the Director of Enforcement, the appeal has, in fact, been filed on behalf of the Government of India, and therefore, the appeal should be treated as having been filed by the Government of India. I do not see how the appeal which is purported to have been filed by the Director of Enforcement can be said to have been filed by the Government of India. Even if the Director of Enforcement has been authorised to

file the appeal and the appeal has been filed at the instance of the Government of India, the cause title of the appeal memorandum should show the Government of India as the appellant. But when the memorandum of grounds of appeal shows the Director of Enforcement as the appellant, it is not open either to the Director of Enforcement or to the Government of India, to say that the appeal has been filed by the Government of India. Admittedly, the Director of Enforcement is an authority subordinate to the Government of India, and he is a person invested with certain powers under the statute as well as by the Government of India. Therefore, the Director of Enforcement cannot in any sense be equated with or treated as the Government of India. Further, it is significant to note that even the amendment petition has been filed only by the Director of Enforcement and not by the Government of India