Delay in FERA adjudication not fatal where proceedings remained alive and later events did not defeat jurisdiction.

In adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, delay alone does not make proceedings stale or void where the record shows the matter remained alive through connected litigation, interim orders and related proceedings. The Court applied a facts-based test of reasonableness rather than any fixed limitation period, and rejected prejudice arguments based on loss of records and unavailable employees because the parties had actively participated and retained their own materials. It also held that valid jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice was not displaced by later compliance or subsequent events, particularly where the objection had not been raised earlier before the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 became stale or arbitrary because the personal hearing had concluded in 1997 and the matter was revived in 2006. (ii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication on the basis of subsequent events and alleged compliance.

Issue (i): Whether adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 became stale or arbitrary because the personal hearing had concluded in 1997 and the matter was revived in 2006.

Analysis: The delay was not assessed in isolation. The proceedings had remained connected with parallel challenges, interim orders, and adjudication against employee-noticees, and the record showed that the matter had been kept alive in court proceedings over the years. The Court held that there is no fixed rule of limitation for adjudication and the test is whether proceedings were continued beyond a reasonable period on the facts of the case. On the facts, the petitioners could not show that the delay was solely attributable to the Department in a manner that made the proceedings stale or unfair. The plea of prejudice from loss of records and non-availability of employees was also rejected because the petitioners had themselves actively participated in the litigation over the years and had access to their own affidavits and material filed in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not held to be stale or void on the ground of delay, and the challenge on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication on the basis of subsequent events and alleged compliance.

Analysis: The Court held that the petitioners were not disputing the initial jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. The objection was only that later developments had allegedly taken away the authority to proceed further. That contention was rejected because jurisdiction had been validly assumed on the basis of a prima facie contravention, and subsequent non-repetition of the alleged illegality did not negate the original jurisdiction. The Court also noted that this objection had not been raised before the Adjudicating Authority in the preliminary objection.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed as the Court found no infirmity in the continuation of the adjudication proceedings and no lack of jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory limitation period, the validity of delayed adjudication depends on whether the delay renders the proceeding unreasonable or unfair on the facts, and a validly assumed jurisdiction is not defeated merely by subsequent developments.

---