Suo motu revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time, even if the statute says "at any time".

Section 20(3) confers an independent suo motu power on the Financial Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of subordinate orders, and withdrawal of the State's appeal does not by itself bar that jurisdiction. That power, however, though expressed to be exercisable "at any time," must still be used within a reasonable period. On the facts, intervention nearly 15 years after the Collector's order was held to be without reasonable justification and invalid, so the Collector's order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Financial Commissioner could exercise suo motu power under the Act after the State had withdrawn its appeal against the Collector's order; (ii) whether exercise of that power nearly 15 years after the Collector's order was within a reasonable time.

Issue (i): whether the Financial Commissioner could exercise suo motu power under the Act after the State had withdrawn its appeal against the Collector's order.

Analysis: Section 20(3) confers an independent statutory power on the Financial Commissioner to call for the record of proceedings or orders of subordinate authorities and to satisfy himself as to their legality or propriety. That power is exercisable notwithstanding the other sub-sections and is not curtailed merely because an appeal filed by the State was withdrawn. The Financial Commissioner acts in a statutory capacity and is not barred from passing an order in accordance with law even if the result is adverse to the State.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of the State's appeal did not bar the Financial Commissioner from exercising suo motu power.

Issue (ii): whether exercise of that power nearly 15 years after the Collector's order was within a reasonable time.

Analysis: Although the power under Section 20(3) may be exercised "at any time," that expression does not authorise action after an unlimited or indeterminate delay. Such power must be used within a reasonable time, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter, no special circumstances justified intervention after a lapse of about 15 years, and the earlier proceedings had already attained finality.

Conclusion: The delayed exercise of suo motu power after about 15 years was unreasonable and invalidated the order.

Final Conclusion: The Financial Commissioner's order could not be sustained because, although the power existed despite withdrawal of the appeal, it was exercised after an unreasonable delay; the Collector's order was therefore restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to act suo motu "at any time" must still be exercised within a reasonable period, and withdrawal of an appeal does not by itself extinguish that independent power.

---