Suo motu revisional power under the Kerala Abkari Act does not require hearing or reasons at the initiation stage.

The Commissioner's consideration of whether to invoke suo motu revisional power under the Kerala Abkari Act was held not to be a quasi-judicial adjudication at the stage of deciding whether revision should be initiated. Because no statutory right existed for an aggrieved party to demand revision, and no proceeding was pending before the Commissioner, refusal to begin revision did not amount to a prejudicial order. The statutory hearing requirement applied only after revision was initiated and an adverse order was proposed. The Commissioner was therefore not bound to afford a hearing or record reasons at the refusal stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner, while considering whether to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 67F of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077, acts quasi-judicially so as to require an opportunity of hearing and recorded reasons before declining to initiate revision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of orders passed under sections 67B or 67E on his own motion within the prescribed time. A party aggrieved by such orders had no independent statutory right to demand revision. At the stage when the Commissioner merely considers whether the case is fit for exercise of suo motu revisional power, no lis is pending before him. The second proviso to section 67F, which mandates hearing before passing a prejudicial order, applies only after the proceeding is initiated and an adverse order is proposed. A refusal to entertain a request for initiation of suo motu revision is therefore not an order prejudicial to the applicant and does not attract a duty to hear or to record reasons.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not bound to afford a hearing or record reasons at the stage of deciding whether to invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court's contrary view was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Consideration of whether to initiate suo motu revision under a statute is not a quasi-judicial adjudication where no statutory right of revision exists and no prejudicial order is made; the duty to hear arises only when the statute so requires before passing an adverse order.

---