JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. The present petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution is another classic case where the lackadaisical approach of respondent no.2- Commissioner of Central Excise in not adjudicating the show cause notice issued 13 years back dated 21 October, 2010 is prayed to be quashed and set aside by the petitioner, on the ground that the law would not permit such delayed adjudication of the show cause notice.

3. At the outset, we may observe that when the petitioner is before the Court pointing out serious lapses on the part of respondent no.2- Commissioner of Central GST, reply affidavit to the petition has been filed by the said respondent but by Shri. Akshay Patil, Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-IV, Mumbai. We wonder as to why the Commissioner who has issued the show cause notice and who has impleaded as respondent no.2 has kept himself away from the Court and has not bothered to respond to this petition when whatever was happening with show cause notice, was to the knowledge of this officer only. It can never be conceived that the Deputy Commissioner who has filed the reply affidavit is a person competent to file such affidavit.

4. We were constrained to make the above observations as we take judicial notice of series of petitions reaching this Court on the ground that the concerned jurisdictional officers exercising such enormous powers not only under the Finance Act, 1994, but also under the other Central Acts, for reasons which are totally ill-conceived and contrary to law, have not adjudicated and/or taken forward the show cause notice for unduly long periods and in some case about 10 years. In our opinion, a serious view in this regard is required to be taken by the Ministry of Finance in regard to the officers who are not diligently discharging such vital duties and who in fact are playing with the public revenue. In such context, in our decision in Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr., Writ Petition No. 4082 of 2022, decided on 25 July, 2023 which concerned delayed adjudication of a show cause notice, considering the binding statutory provisions, we have observed that such lethargic approach of the concerned officer not to adjudicate show cause notice within the time frame as prescribed by law, would be an action on the part of the concerned officer contrary to law, who cannot be expected to violate the mandate of law. As such issues vitally affect the public revenue, we also observed that such inaction on the part of such officers would adversely affect the interest of the revenue. We also observed that if prompt adjudication of the show cause notice is not undertaken, such lapse of time and certainly a long lapse of time is likely to cause irreversible changes frustrating the whole adjudication. Our observations in that regard are required to be noted which read thus:-

“17. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, such requirement and obligation the law would mandate is completely overlooked by the officer responsible for adjudicating the show cause notice. We are not shown any provision, which in any manner would permit any authority to condone such inordinate delay on the part of the adjudicating officer to adjudicate show cause notice. There can be none, as the legislature has clearly intended to avoid uncertainty, which otherwise can emerge. Thus, what would become applicable are the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of judgments, that the period within which such adjudication should happen is as mandated by law and in any case it needs to be done within a reasonable period from the issuance of the show cause notice. Further, whether such period is a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

18. An inordinate delay is seriously prejudical to the