Reasonable time requirement can invalidate delayed foreign exchange proceedings where no statutory limitation exists.

Where no express statutory limitation applies, proceedings must still be initiated within a reasonable time; an inordinate and unexplained delay can render a notice and the resulting action invalid. On the facts described, foreign exchange transactions from 1992-1993 were pursued only in 2002, near the end of the FERA sunset period, and no extension of record-preservation obligations was shown. The delay was therefore treated as unfair and unreasonable, and the show-cause notices and consequent proceedings were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notices and the proceedings initiated nearly a decade after the alleged foreign exchange transactions were tenable in law, and whether such delayed initiation was liable to be set aside as unreasonable.

Analysis: In the absence of any express statutory period of limitation, administrative or adjudicatory powers must still be exercised within a reasonable time. The alleged transactions were of 1992-1993, while the notices were issued in 2002, shortly before the expiry of the FERA sunset period. The banking records preservation rules also required retention only for specified periods of five and eight years, and no order extending preservation beyond that period was shown. On these facts, the delay in initiating proceedings was held to be unfair and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The show-cause notices and the proceedings based on them were not maintainable and were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no statutory limitation is prescribed, proceedings must nevertheless be initiated within a reasonable time, and an inordinate and unexplained delay can invalidate the notice and the consequent proceedings.

---