Revisional powers under the Abkari Act may be considered on request, with coercive recovery kept in abeyance pending decision.

An application seeking revisional intervention under Section 67F of the Abkari Act was treated as a request for the Commissioner to examine whether revisional powers should be exercised, rather than as a substantive revision. The Commissioner was held competent to consider the material and either invoke revisional action if warranted or reject the request if no basis existed. Because security had already been furnished and the application was pending, coercive steps under the impugned notice were to remain in abeyance until the application was decided. The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the request within three months.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could consider the petitioner's application in relation to revisional action under Section 67F of the Abkari Act and whether the impugned notice should remain in abeyance pending such consideration.

Analysis: The petitioner's request was treated as an application inviting the Commissioner to consider whether revisional powers should be exercised. The Court accepted that the Commissioner was competent to examine the material placed before him and, if satisfied that revisional intervention was warranted, to act under Section 67F. If no such basis existed, the application could be rejected as not maintainable. In view of the security already furnished and the pendency of the application, interim protection against coercive action was considered appropriate until that application was decided.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was directed to consider the application within three months, treating it not as a revision but as a request for exercise of revisional powers, and the notice was ordered to be kept in abeyance until disposal of that application.

---