Reasonable time requirement bars stale revision; unexplained delay and no material illegality justified refusal to interfere.

A revision petition filed after prolonged unexplained delay was held not entertainable, because even without a prescribed limitation period the remedy must be pursued within a reasonable time and inordinate delay may amount to laches, acquiescence, and waiver. On the merits, revisional interference was refused because the record disclosed no serious illegality, impropriety, grave injustice, or material irregularity in the adjudication order, and the accepted facts did not establish the alleged foreign exchange contravention. The revision therefore failed on both delay and merits, and the adjudication order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision petition filed after a prolonged unexplained delay could be entertained when no express limitation period is prescribed. (ii) Whether the adjudication order suffered from illegality or impropriety warranting interference on merits.

Issue (i): Whether a revision petition filed after a prolonged unexplained delay could be entertained when no express limitation period is prescribed.

Analysis: The revision petition was filed long after the adjudication order, with no explanation for the delay. Even where no specific limitation period is prescribed, the remedy must be invoked within a reasonable time. Prolonged unexplained delay may amount to laches, and may also indicate acquiescence and waiver. The absence of a statutory period does not permit filing at any remote point of time without justification.

Conclusion: The revision petition was barred by laches and was not entertainable on account of unexplained delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order suffered from illegality or impropriety warranting interference on merits.

Analysis: The record did not disclose any serious illegality, grave injustice, or material irregularity in the adjudication order. The facts as accepted below did not establish contravention of the provisions concerning dealing in foreign exchange in the manner alleged, and revisional interference was not warranted in the absence of a demonstrable legal infirmity.

Conclusion: No interference on merits was called for and the adjudication order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed both on delay and on merits, and the impugned adjudication order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a statute does not prescribe a fixed limitation period for revision, the remedy must be pursued within a reasonable time, and unexplained inordinate delay may justify rejection on the ground of laches; revisional interference is confined to cases of illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity.

---