1. Show-cause notice under suo motu revisional jurisdiction issued after four-and-a-half years — Whether within reasonable time under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6). (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 1202
Supreme Court Of India
(Record of Proceedings)
G.B. PATTANAIK, CJI., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -Petitioner
Versus
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD.
AND OTHERS -Respondents.
SLPs (C) No. 1561 of2002t with Nos. 1562 and 1563 of 2002, Contempt Petition (C) No. 297 of2ool, IA No. 24 in CA No. 5556 of 2001, IA No. I in Contempt Petition (C) No. 508 of 2002 in CA No. 5556
of 200 I, decided on December 5, 2002
Suo motu powers must be exercised within a reasonable period, even if no statutory limitation is prescribed. If there is a significant delay, the authority must provide valid reasons for such delay; otherwise, the exercise of jurisdiction may be quashed as unreasonable.
Headnote:(A) Suo motu jurisdiction - Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) of the Rules - Exercise of power within reasonable time - Whether the issuance of a show-cause notice after approximately four-and-a-half years is sustainable - Suo motu revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable period even where no period of limitation is provided - Reasonableness depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and whether the authority concerned has indicated reasons for the delay - In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the exercise of jurisdiction after four-and-a-half years is held to be not exercised within a reasonable period. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
In 1992, the Deputy Collector held land belonging to the respondents. A show-cause notice was subsequently issued by the Collector in 1996. The High Court quashed the proceedings, concluding that although the Collector possessed the power, such power had to be exercised within a reasonable time, which was not done in this instance.
Findings of Court:
Upon examining the show-cause notice, it was found that the Collector failed to indicate why no action was taken from 1992 until 1996, despite the narration of facts being provided in the notice.
Issues: Whether the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Collector in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) of the Rules was bad as it was not exercised within a reasonable time.
Ratio Decidendi: Whether suo motu power has been exercised within a reasonable period depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the authority exercising the power fails to indicate reasons for the delay in the notice, the exercise of jurisdiction after a significant period, such as four-and-a-half years, must be held as not having been exercised within a reasonable period.
Result: SLPs dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued power could be exercised after delay as property not of respondents; opposite party argued reasonable time limitation applies. (Para 5 )
3. Whether suo motu power exercised within reasonable time depends on facts; absence of explanation for delay in notice renders exercise unreasonable. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Suo motu revisional power under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) must be exercised within reasonable period; authority must indicate reasons for delay. (Para 7 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; impugned judgment upheld; related petitions disposed of. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Must suo motu revisional power under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) be exercised within a reasonable time?
Yes, even though no limitation period is prescribed, it must be exercised within a reasonable period depending on the facts and circumstances. (Para 3 , 7 )
7. What is the effect of absence of reasons for delay in the show-cause notice?
The authority must indicate reasons for the delay; absence of such explanation renders the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable. (Para 7 )
8. Does the exception for money held in trust apply to land matters under the same statute?
No, the court distinguished that line of decisions, holding it applies only where money is withheld by a defaulter, not to land matters. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1.Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr Dholakia, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party.
3. The question for consideration in this special leave petition is whether
the impugned judgment which holds the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Collector in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6} of the Rules is bad, as it was not exercised within a reasonable time, is sustainable or not. From the Judgment and Order dated 24-11-2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
4. It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, that in 1992, the Deputy Collector held the land belonging to the respondents. The impugned notice issued by the Collector which was the subject-matter of adjudication before the High Court in the writ petition, was issued in 1996. The High Court in the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that though the Collector does have the power but that power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. According to the High Court, the same not having been exercised within a reasonable time, the proceedings must be quashed.
5. Mr Dholakia appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the property itself not being that of the respondents, the Collector was well within his power to issue the show-cause notice even after expiry of about four-and-a-half years and in the facts and circumstances, the conclusion that it was not exercised within a reasonable period is not correct. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India as well as in the case of
Ultam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo2
6. In the aforesaid case of Hindustan Times the Court was considering the question of reasonableness with regard to the exercise of power under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Court did notice in para 21 of the judgment, that the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patif Raghav Natha3 whereunder, on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Act, which is now under consideration in the case in hand, it was indicated that the suo motu revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised within a reasonable period even though no period of limitation has been provided for. But it was stated that that decision or the line of decisions in that respect will not apply to a case where money has been withheld by a defaulter and the defaulter holds the money in trust.
7. In our considered opinion, whether the suo motu power has been exercised within a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power whether the authority concerned has indicated any reasons for the same. On examining the impugned notice of show-cause that was issued, we find that the
Collector has not indicated as to why from 1992 till 1996, no action could be taken though the narration of facts had been made. In the absence of any explanation by the Collector in the impugned notice, the exercise of jurisdiction after expiry of about four-and-a-half years must be held not to have been exercised within a reasonable period within the ambit of Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) of the relevant Rules. Consequently, we see no infirmity with the impugned decision requiring Our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed.
8. Delay condoned.
9. In view of our aforesaid order in SLP (C) No. 1562 of 2002, these a petitions stand disposed of.
1A No. 24 in CA No. 5556 of 2001, Contempt Petition (C) No. 297 of 2001 and 1A No.1 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 5080f2002
10. Adjourned.
Court Masters
