ORDER 1.Delay condoned. 2. Heard Mr Dholakia, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party. 3. The question for consideration in this special leave petition is whether the impugned judgment which holds the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Collector in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6} of the Rules is bad, as it was not exercised within a reasonable time, is sustainable or not. From the Judgment and Order dated 24-11-2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad 4. It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, that in 1992, the Deputy Collector held the land belonging to the respondents. The impugned notice issued by the Collector which was the subject-matter of adjudication before the High Court in the writ petition, was issued in 1996. The High Court in the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that though the Collector does have the power but that power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. According to the High Court, the same not having been exercised within a reasonable time, the proceedings must be quashed. 5. Mr Dholakia appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the property itself not being that of the respondents, the Collector was well within his power to issue the show-cause notice even after expiry of about four-and-a-half years and in the facts and circumstances, the conclusion that it was not exercised within a reasonable period is not correct. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India as well as in the case of Ultam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo2 6. In the aforesaid case of Hindustan Times the Court was considering the question of reasonableness with regard to the exercise of power under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. In the aforesaid case of Hindustan Times the Court was considering the question of reasonableness with regard to the exercise of power under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Court did notice in para 21 of the judgment, that the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patif Raghav Natha3 whereunder, on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Act, which is now under consideration in the case in hand, it was indicated that the suo motu revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised within a reasonable period even though no period of limitation has been provided for. But it was stated that that decision or the line of decisions in that respect will not apply to a case where money has been withheld by a defaulter and the defaulter holds the money in trust. 7. In our considered opinion, whether the suo motu power has been exercised within a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power whether the authority concerned has indicated any reasons for the same. On examining the impugned notice of show-cause that was issued, we find that the Collector has not indicated as to why from 1992 till 1996, no action could be taken though the narration of facts had been made. In the absence of any explanation by the Collector in the impugned notice, the exercise of jurisdiction after expiry of about four-and-a-half years must be held not to have been exercised within a reasonable period within the ambit of Section 211 read with Rule 108(6) of the relevant Rules. Consequently, we see no infirmity with the impugned decision requiring Our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is accordingly dismissed. 8. Delay condoned. 9. In view of our aforesaid order in SLP (C) No. 1562 of 2002, these a petitions stand disposed of. 1A No. 24 in CA No. 5556 of 2001, Contempt Petition (C) No. 297 of 2001 and 1A No.1 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 5080f2002 10. Adjourned. Court Masters