STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus N. AVINASIAPPAN

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 20-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF KERALA AND· ORS. 
V. 
N. AVINASIAPPAN 
NOVEMBER 20, 2003 
B 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Excise Law : 
Kera/a Abkari Act, 1977 : 
C 
S. 67F-Revision-Suo motu powers of Commissioner-Opportunity 
of hearing-Application before Excise Commissioner for suo motu exercise 
of revisional power for setting aside the order passed by Joint Commissioner 
in appeal u/s. 76B-Rejected-High Court holding that Commissioner 
ought to have given opportunity of hearing to applicant and recorded 
D reasons for rejecting the application-Held, merely because a party to the 
proceedings may bring an order passed u/s. 67B or s. 67E to the notice 
of the Commissioner, the same would not ipso facto mean that he has to 
exercise his suo motu powers-A parry to the appeal in terms of s. 67B 
or 67E has not been conferred any right to file a revision application-
£ When Commissioner examines the application only for the purpose of 
arriving at a finding as to whether it is a fit case where sao motu power 
of revision should be exercised or not, no !is between the parties can be 
said to be pending-At that stage he would not be exercising any quasi 
judicial powers as has been incorrectly held by the High Court-Question 
F of giving an opportunity of hearing to applicant or assigning reasons by 
Commissioner would not be necessary-Besides, in view of second proviso 
to s. 67F, principles of natural justice have been extended only where the 
proceeding is initiated in terms of the provision and the order which is 
proposed to be passed would be prejudicial to the parties at a !is-As the 
G applicant had no statutory right to file a revision petition, merely because 
his application requesting the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional 
powers had not been entertained, the same would not mean that any order 
prejudicial to him had been passed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 225 of 
H 1999. 
4 
•. 
~. 
STATE v. H. A VINASIAPPAN 
5 
_j.-
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.98 of the Kerala High Court A 
in W.A. No. 637 of 1991. 
Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
. ..i 
In the year 1989, the Excise Circle Inspector seized a lorry and 45 
barrels of spirit under the Abkari Act, alleged to be owned by the 
respondent. The driver and the cleaner compounded the offence before the 
Excise Circle Inspector on payment of fine of Rs. l 0,000 each. Subsequently, 
the Joint Commissioner, Excise, released the vehicle to the respondent on c 
furnishing the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 
Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Joint 
Commissioner under Section 678 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1977 (for short 
'the Act') and the same was dismissed. The respondent thereafter filed a D 
revision before the Excise Commissioner praying therein for suo motu 
j. 
exercise of revisional power by the Excise Commissioner for setting aside 
the order passed by the authority below. The said petition was rejected on 
4.6.91 by the Excise Commissioner. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was 
dismissed. However, on a writ appeal filed by the respondent, the Division E 
" 
Bench of the Kerala High Court set aside the order of the learned Single 
Judge and allowed the appeal after having come to the view that as the 
Excise Commissioner was exercising powers under Section 67F of the Act, 
he was acting quasi judicially and as such an opportunity of hearing ought 
to have been given to the respondent and ·further the Commissioner ought F 
J 
to have recorded reasons for rejecting the petition of the respondent. It is 
against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal 
before us. 
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and are G 
I-• 
satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. Section 67F 
of the Act runs as under : 
~ 
"67F. Revision : (1) The Commissioner may, before the 
expiry of thirty days from the date of an order passed under 
Section 68 or Section 67E, of his own motion, call for and H 
6 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
examine the record of that order and may make such inquiry or 
cause such inquiry to be made and may pass such orders as he 
deems fit : 
Provided that the Commissioner shall not call for and 
examine the record of any order passed under Section 678 if an 
appeal against such order i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.