motu proceedings initiated are questionable. In the event, the respondents seek to claim that the documents on which the petitioners rely are bogus documents, there should be a finding already on this aspect of the matter. The matter lying in limbo for the past several years is therefore inexplicable. Insofar as the exercise of suo motu powers by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 136(3) is circumscribed by the period of limitation, thought not prescribed under the Act. It is really the law laid down by the apex court in a catena of decisions, wherein it has been repeatedly held that exercise of suo motu powers, when no such time is prescribed, should be within a reasonable time and not at a remote point of time. Hence, the exercise of power itself being not in accordance with law, it would appear that the respondents ought to satisfy themselves as to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents relied upon by the petitioners, one way or the other and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law so that the petitioners made take recourse to further proceedings if necessary. For
