17.On facts, I am convinced that the investigation, which has proceeded since March 2017, appears to have opened a “can of worms”. The consignment, which was in transit, handled by the petitioner, was brought back. On examining of the cargo, CLRI certified that it does not confirm to the prescribed standard. On further investigation, it appears that several such similar consignments handled by the petitioner have come under scrutiny. The Department conducted search operations in the premises of the petitioner, after obtaining warrant, documents have been recovered, statements have been recorded from several persons including the officers of the petitioner and the writ petitioner themselves would admit that for several months, statements have been recorded from various persons. Thereafter, for a period of almost four months, several correspondence have taken place and investigation was going on. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case and complexity of the matter, it cannot be stated that there was inordinate delay in intimating the Licensing Authority about the offence, which was detected. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the clear view that the auction initiated by the respondent in invoking such Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR by passing an order on 14.03.2018 on receipt of the offence report on 27.02.2018 cannot be stated to be barred by limitation or an exercise, which is uncalled for. Thus, the petitioner has to necessarily fail on this issue.
