Reopening adjudication proceedings after a long delay is impermissible, and authorities must exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable period. The duty of the authorities to provide reasons for delays in adjudication proceedings is emphasized.

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a Memo being No. T4/18-C/97-XX dated 3rd June, 1998 and lso another Memo being No.T4/XX/18-C/97/SCN/1258 (P), dated 6th July, 2016, issued by the Assistant Director for Special Directorate (E.R.), Directorate of Enforcement, whereby the petitioner was sought to be informed that final opportunity was being extended to him to take complete inspection of the relied upon documents once again on 11th July, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. before the Assistant Director (Adjudication). It was indicated in the said Memo that inspection would be a allowed to the persons who will be authorized by the Government. If the inspection process was not completed by the given date, the case would be decided ex parte on its merit as the matter was getting delayed for a long time. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the reopening of an issue which was closed long back for no fault on the part of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that, although, the petitioner rendered all co-operation at all stages, but the authority delayed the proceeding unnecessarily and after a lapse of 20 years they wanted to reopen the same once again when the petitioners never thought it fit to preserve the documents and the evidence which were available might have been destroyed and/or not available at the present moment. On such consideration, when the matter was initially moved, an interim protection was granted by an order dated 16th August, 2016 and while passing the interim order, this Court elaborately discussed the necessity of granting interim protection. The said interim order was never challenged by the authority. Direction was issued to file affidavit-in-opposition. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Now, the matter has been taken up for final consideration on affidavits. To better understand the case, following dates are to be taken note of :

LIST OF DATES
3rd June, 1998	Shri M.C. Joshi, Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate, issued Show Cause Memorandum No. T4/18-C/97-XX dated 3rd June, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as SCM XX) to the Petitioner No.1.
11th June, 1998	The petitioner No.1 received SCM XX at its aforesaid office at Kolkata.
12th June, 1998	By a letter dated 12th June, 1998, the Petitioner No.1 wrote to the Respondents denying the allegations in SCM-XX and stating that your Petitioner No.1 would be approaching the office of the Respondents at Kolkata for production of the originals of the documents sought to be relied upon by the Respondents and for inspection of the same by the Petitioner No.1.
1998-2001	The respondents allowed inspection of the Relied Upon Documents (hereinafter referred as the RUDs in SCMXX in a piecemeal manner. At no point of time did they produce all the originals of the RUDs, or give inspection of the same.
2001	In 2001, the Respondents abruptly stopped the process of production of originals and inspection of documents, before the same could be completed.
7th January, 2002	By a letter dated 7th January, 2002, the Petitioner No.1 complained about suspension of the process of giving inspection of documents in August, 2001 and requested the then Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate to allow the Petitioner No.1 to resume inspection of records.
27th May, 2002	The Petitioner No.1 filed an Interim Reply dated 27th May, 2002 to SCM-XX.
3rd July, 2004	Shri G.K.P. Reddy, on whose statement SCM-XX is heavily reliant, passed away.
13th January, 2015	The respondents issued Call Notice T-4/18-C/97-SCNXX/275 dated 13th January, 2015 to the Petitioner No.1, fixing for the first time a date i.e., 6th February, 2015 for personal hearing of SC