JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. At the instance of an assessee, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, has referred one question in [CASE NUMBER] and three questions in [CASE NUMBER], . for the decision of this court. They are as follows :
[CASE NUMBER] :
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax is right in law in holding that the principles of [1980] KIT 276 ( Commissioner of Agrl. I. T. v. Chutlikkan Parameswara Bhat [1980] 125 ITR 28 (Ker are not applicable in the instant case ?"
[CASE NUMBER] :
" 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner was right under law in exercising his powers under [SECTION] of the Act, after an inordinate delay of 13 years from the date of the assessment order and after 12 years from the date of directions issued by the Honourable High Court?
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the decision of [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] of the Kerala High Court is applicable or not in the present case ?
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner is right under law in holding that the principles of [CASE NUMBER] are not applicable in the instant case?"
2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1961-62 for which the accounting period was July 1, 1959, to June 30, 1960. The assessee is M/s. Kallakutta Farms, Muttathodi P.O., Kasargode. Till 1960-61, their assessments were completed in the status of "Hindu undivided family". During the course of assessment for the year 1961-62, the assessee claimed the status of "tenants-in-common" by virtue of an agreement dated June 30, 1959, registered on June 25, 1960. They pleaded that there had been a severance in the status of the joint family. Copy of the agreement dated June 30, 1959, is annexure-B. The assessing authority, after making enquiries, by an order dated December 31, 1960, gave effect to the agreement and held that the assessment should be made under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for the accounting year commencing from July 1, 1960, and the tax payable by all the ten ants-in-common will be demanded in the hands of the common manager. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, by virtue of the powers conferred on him under [SECTION] of the Act, initiated suo motu revision proceedings. By notice dated December 9, 1964, issued to M/s. [ENTITY] and six others, he proposed to cancel the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer dated December 31, 1960. It was further proposed that the status should be reassigned as Hindu undivided family. Mr. [ENTITY], manager of the family, filed objections on December 51, 1964. He died on December 27, 1965. Therefore, the proceedings necessitated issue of fresh notice to all the adult members of the family. Notice was issued on March 9, 1966, which was served on April 16, 1966. It is seen that Shri [ENTITY], one of the members of the family, filed [CASE NUMBER] in this court assailing the said notice. But, the original petition was dismissed on July 25, 1967. Thereafter, Mr. [ENTITY] and another member of the family, Mr. [ENTITY], filed objections on August 22, 1967, and December 10, 1967, respectively. (They are annexures F and G). For nearly 13 years, no action seems to have been taken in the said proceedings. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax heard, the parties on April 22, 1980, and passed an order dated October 31, 1980, reversing the order assigning the status of "tenants-in-common" by the assessing authority as early as December 31, 1960. The assessing authority was directed to revise the assessment reassigning the status as " Hindu undivided family ". It is thereafter at the motion of the assessee that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-
tax, Trivandrum, referred the only question in [CASE NUMBER]. The assessee moved this court in [CASE NUMBER] and, as directed by this court, three other questions have been referred for the same year and arising out of the same revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax dated October 31, 1980. The said three questions are referred in [CASE NUMBER].
3. We heard counsel. The main thrust of the argument by the assessee's counsel was that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax exercised the revisional power vested in him under [SECTION] of the Act after inordinate delay - nearly 20 years after the assessment order and 13 years after the proceedings were initiated and notice was served on all the members. Counsel submitted that the initiation of the proceedings by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, by notice dated December 9, 1964, may be within time. Even so, in a proceeding initiated as early as December 9, 1964, the entire proceedings were put in cold storage for nearly 16 years. Notice was issued to all the adult members as early as March 9, 1966, and served on April 16, 1966. The members of the family filed their objections as early as August 22, 1967, and December 10, 1967. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax simply folded his hands. He heard the parties as late as on April 22, 1980, and passed the order on October 31, 1980. It was passed after inordinate delay. The Commissioner did not act reasonably. So, the revisional order passed by the Commissioner is vitiated. The exercise of power is unreasonable or irrational.
4. We find from the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (annexure H) dated October 30, 1980, that the plea was urged before him. Even so, the Commissioner has stated that the proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time and so the objections are overruled. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. [ENTITY], submitted that an order passed after such a long time is unreasonable. It is for the Revenue to allege and prove facts which would show that there were imponderables or other difficulties which disabled the Commissioner from passing appropriate orders within a reasonable time, after the objections were filed as early as August 22, 1967, and December 10, 1967. There is no material to say so. So, the order passed by the Commissioner dated October 31, 1980, is irrational or unreasonable.
5. Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. [ENTITY], submitted that the suo motu revision proceedings have been initiated within time and that the said proceedings should be deemed to be pending till the final order is passed. Counsel for the Revenue further submitted that the Act has not specified the time limit within which the revisional order should be rendered and, in the absence of any such specification, the order passed on October 31, 1980, by the Commissioner cannot be said to be in any way vitiated. It cannot be assailed as unreasonable or irrational.
6. On hearing the rival pleas put forward before us, we are of the view that the revisional order passed by the Commissioner dated October 31, 1980, is unreasonable or irrational. The order was passed after inordinate delay. The suo motu proceedings were initiated as per the notice dated March 9, 1966. Objections were filed as early as August 22, 1967, and December 10, 1967. Yet it took more than 13 years for the Commissioner to hear all the parties and pass the order on October 31, 1980. In all the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the exercise of power by the statutory authority is per se unreasonable and irrational.
7. We were referred to a few decisions by both sides in order to highlight their respective pleas. That the repository of a statutory power should exercise the power vested in him within a reasonable period can admit of no doubt. The decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], held so. This court has, on more than one occasion, held that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax can invoke his suo motu power of revision only within a reasonable time. The decisions are : [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. These decisions were quoted with approval in a recent Bench decision of this court (to which one of us was a party) in [PRECEDENT]. After referring to the three earlier decisions of this court and the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], this court held that the power vested in the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax should be exercised bona fide and within a reasonable period. It was further held that the Revenue should be able to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties for not setting in motion the proceedings under [SECTION] of the Act within the normal period provided in [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. Stress was laid on the fact that the action of the statutory authority should be rational or reasonable. Reference was made to the decisions in [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT] ; [PRECEDENT]. In Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd.'s case [PRECEDENT], it was held thus :
" The word ' irrational' or ' unreasonable' is used in a comprehensive sense. It is used as a general pointer or description of the things that must not be done. It covers a multitude of sins. It is a generalised fabric, which takes within its fold decisions which are tainted by perversity, arbitrariness, caprice or absurdity. Though the repository of jurisdiction under the statute acts within the four corners of the legislative mandate, it is said that he has arrived at a decision which is repugnant to' reason' the decision is ' irrational' and so unfair and illegal."
8. Counsel for the Revenue sought to distinguish the above four decisions of this court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], on the ground that in those cases it is the initiation of the revisional jurisdiction that was in issue and all that this court insisted on was that the revisional power should be invoked within a reasonable time. It was argued that once the revisional jurisdiction was invoked within a reasonable time, as in this case, the final order can be passed at any time. Counsel for the Revenue drew a distinction between the initiation of the proceedings and the passing of the final order, in the proceedings already initiated. The plea was that once the proceedings were validly initiated, in the absence of any fetter imposed by the statute, the final order can be passed at any time thereafter.
9. We are unable to accept the above plea put forward by the Revenue. It is trite law that statutory powers must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, without negligence, and for the purpose for which they were conferred. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 30, page 688, paragraph 1327). If the repository of a statutory power should exercise it reasonably, we are unable to understand the dichotomy in the said process that the initiation of the proceedings should be within a reasonable time, but the rendering of the final order can be at any time, arbitrarily No such distinction can be drawn. The said distinction has no legal basis to stand on. It is true that in [PRECEDENT], a case which arose under the [ACT], a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, in the absence of any statutory provision prescribing any period of limitation for the completion of an assessment, it cannot be held that the assessment must be made within a reasonable time or else it would be barred by limitation. The court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and held that, in those cases, what the Supreme Court held was that, for the exercise of the suo motu power of revision, the revisional authority should initiate the proceedings within a reasonable time. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court took the view that the said decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be an authority for the proposition that the assessment itself should be passed or completed within a reasonable time. To similar effect are the decisions of the Bombay High Court in [PRECEDENT] and the decisions of the Madras High Court in Vijdyd Production Private Ltd. v. OT [1980] 122 ITR 1[SECTION] and [PRECEDENT]. We should say that, in none of these decisions, has any legal basis been given for drawing a dichotomy between initiation of proceedings and the completion thereof. The Supreme Court has categorically held that even in the absence of a " time limit" prescribed by the statute, the repository of the power should initiate the proceedings within a reasonable time ; by the same token, even for the completion of the proceedings, the same logic should apply and the final order should be passed within a reasonable time, even in the absence of a fetter in that behalf in the statute concerned. In our view, both "termini" stand on the same footing. If suo motu revisional proceedings can be invoked only within a reasonable time, by the same logic, the proceedings themselves should be rendered or passed within a reasonable time. The repository of statutory power should be reasonable, that means that [ENTITY]' sword should not hang endlessly at the caprice of any statutory authority. The principle laid down in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.'s case [PRECEDENT] and developed in the later cases [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] mandates that an order passed by a statutory authority should be reasonable. It should be rational and fair. If, after initiating suo motu revisional proceedings validly or within a reasonable time, the authority keeps the matter in cold storage and passes the order after inordinate delay, as in this case, nearly 13 years after the objections were filed, the conclusion is irresistible that the statutory authority acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. The authority failed to act fairly and in a reasonable manner. The matter is covered by the Wednesbury principle. We hold so. To the extent the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh, Bombay and Madras High Courts take a view contrary to the one expressed by us hereinabove, we express our respectful dissent.
10. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in [CASE NUMBER] in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Since we have held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (annexure H) dated October 31, 1980, is tainted as irrational or unreasonable, there is no necessity to consider the only question referred in [CASE NUMBER] and questions Nos. 2 and 3 in [CASE NUMBER]. We decline to answer the other three questions in the two cases.
11. The reference is disposed of as above.
12. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum.