purchaser was returned with an endorsement that he was dead, does it imply that the Commissioner's conduct should be brought under scrutiny? It should not be forgotten that the auction in the instant case had taken place on 29.11.2012, and notice to the auction purchaser had gone from DRAT sometime in 2014. There is a difference of two years, which confirms that the auction need not have been in the name of the dead person. However, this is an aspect which can be conveniently gone into even without the Commissioner in the party array. It may be that the DRAT might have opined that the Commissioner might have to be impleaded, but then that is not conclusive either. If it is compared with the civil Court scenario, if for instance the auction sale conducted by the bailiff of the Court or any delivery effected by him is challenged before the Execution Court, does it require impleading of the bailiff as a party to the execution proceedings? He is after all an officer of the Court, and whether he has engaged in any practise which might turn out to be fraudulent, can be tested on the basis of the factual aspects. Similarly, the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal is an officer of the Tribunal, and whether he had sold the property to a dead person and the suspicion of the revision petitioners can be tested on the basis of the death
