93. The directions given in the aforesaid quotation should not be understood as empowering the authorities/Board to initiate action at any time. In the absence of any period of time and limitation prescribed by the enactment, every authority is to exercise power within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon facts of each case, such as whether the violation was hidden and camouflaged and thereby the Board or the authorities did not have any knowledge. Though, no hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as determination of the question will depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities thereunder and other consequences, including prejudice caused and whether third party rights have been created are relevant factors. Whenever a question with regard to inordinate delay in issuance of a show-cause notice is made, it is open to the noticee to contend that the show-cause notice is bad on the ground of delay and it is the duty of the authority/officer to consider the question objectively, fairly and in a rational manner. There is public interest involved in not taking up and spending time on stale matters and, therefore, exercise of power, even when no time is specified, should be done within reasonable time. [ See State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha , (1969) 2 SCC 187, para 11; Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak , (1984) 1 SCC 125, para 12; Union of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals , (1989) 3 SCC 483, para 6 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 464; State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249, para 16; State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. , (2007) 11 SCC 363.] This prevents miscarriage of
