Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that there is no competent appeal before this Court which can be decided on merits as the Director of Enforcement was not empowered to file any appeal and it was only the Central Government which could file the appeal. In support of the argument, reliance is placed on Director of Enforcement, Madras V/s. Rama Arangannal and Anr. , AIR1981 Mad 80 , (1981 )1 MLJ62 which is a direct decision on the point and is on all fours with the facts of the case. Therein an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement under Sec.51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). That order was challenged by the aggrieved party by filing an appeal before the Appellate Board under Sec.52 of the Act. The Appellate Board allowed the appeal and against the order of the Appellate Board the Director of Enforcement filed second appeal under Sec.54 of the Act before the Madras High Court. When the appeal came up for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the Director of Enforcement had no authority to file the appeal and since the same was