9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 508 - HC - FEMAAllegation of acts and omissions - The petitioner is contending that reopening of the matter at the present stage after more than 22 years would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Department has failed and neglected to explain as to why they took 13 years from the date of alleged issuance of the said memorandum to commence adjudication proceedings Held that - It is no doubt true that no period of limitation in the Statute to complete the adjudication proceeding is prescribed. But the Apex Court in the case of Government of India v. The Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras & Ors. 1989 -TMI - 42485 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was pleased to rule that in absence of any period of limitation, it is settled that every Authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period - What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in tins regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case - The Department is not entitled to re-open old matters in this manner.
Issues involved:
Challenge to adjudication proceedings after a significant delay. Analysis: 1. Delay in adjudication proceedings: The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash a memorandum and notice related to adjudication proceedings under various foreign exchange regulations dating back to the 1980s. The petitioner argued that reopening the matter after more than 22 years would cause serious prejudice. The court noted that no notice was issued to the petitioner during the 13-year gap since the memorandum was issued. The petitioner contended that the delay barred the proceedings by laches. The court considered various legal precedents emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and observed that the delay of over 12 years without any fault on the petitioner's part was unjustified. 2. Legal considerations: The court referred to the absence of a specific limitation period in the statute for completing adjudication proceedings. Citing relevant case law, the court highlighted the principle that every authority must exercise its power within a reasonable period. The court emphasized that determining a reasonable period depends on the facts of each case, and no fixed rule applies. In this case, the court found that the delay of more than 12 years in initiating adjudication proceedings without any justification was unreasonable and prejudicial to the petitioner. 3. Prejudice and detriment to the petitioner: The court noted that the belated reopening of proceedings would make it nearly impossible for the petitioner to recall relevant facts or access documents from almost 30 years prior. The court emphasized that the absence of relevant records due to the prolonged delay was a significant factor. It concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue at such a late stage would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. The court held that the department could not reopen old matters in such a manner and granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the adjudication proceedings. 4. Judgment and conclusion: The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, granting the requested relief to quash the adjudication proceedings. The court highlighted that the department's delay in initiating proceedings after more than 12 years without valid justification was unjust and prejudicial to the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely adjudication and the right to a speedy trial, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner based on the specific circumstances of the case. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal considerations, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to quash the adjudication proceedings based on the significant delay and prejudice caused to the petitioner.
|
