Directory time limit for inquiry proceedings may not justify quashing when delay is explained and no gross lapse is shown.

A time limit fixed for completing customs broker inquiry proceedings may be treated as directory, not mandatory, where the surrounding order shows it was meant to secure expeditious disposal rather than create an outer limit for the broker's benefit. Here, the Court found the delay sufficiently explained, including reference to related proceedings, and saw no gross delay or failure justifying quashing. The request to terminate the inquiry on delay grounds was rejected, and the proceedings were allowed to continue with an expectation of completion within the stated period, subject to witness availability and the broker's cooperation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inquiry proceedings against the customs broker could be quashed on the ground that the inquiry had not been completed within 90 days and there was delay in concluding the proceedings.

Analysis: The direction to complete the inquiry within 90 days was read in the context of the earlier order and was treated as a direction in the interest of the respondents rather than a mandatory outer limit for the petitioner's benefit. The delay was also explained by the respondents with reference to the proceedings at Jodhpur, and the material before the Court did not show such gross delay or complete failure to justify quashing the inquiry. The Court also recorded the respondents' statement that the inquiry would be concluded within 12 weeks, subject to availability of witnesses and the petitioner's cooperation.

Conclusion: The request to quash the inquiry proceedings on the ground of delay was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with an expectation that the inquiry would be completed expeditiously, while the proceedings themselves were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A time period fixed for completing disciplinary or regulatory inquiry proceedings may be treated as directory where the surrounding order shows it was intended as a direction in aid of expeditious disposal and the delay is satisfactorily explained.

---