M MATHIAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was dismissed from the post of Secretary from the fourth respondent Soci"ety and he filed a revision before the second respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. His revision was allowed by the revisional authority by an order dated 25.9.2000 and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.19072 of 2000.

(2.) HOWEVER, this Court instead of entertaining the said writ petition directed the Society to prefer a further Revision before the Govern"ment. Inadvertently, in the order, it is stated that instead of the petitioner being a Review the Revision should be filed within one month from the date of the order. Accordingly, the society filed a Revision before the Government, by then revision petition dated 25.9.2000. The petition was allowed by the Government vide its order dated 5.7.2005. It is seen from the im"pugned order of the first respondent/Govern"ment made in G.O. (D) No. 328, Housing and Urban Development (Co.Op. (2) Department dated 5.7.2005 that there was another Revi'sion Petition dated 23.2.2005 was filed by the 4th respondent/Secretary. Apparently, the Government exercising the power of a revisional authority had also called for a report from the second respondent/Registrar of Co-operative Society dated 20.1.2005.

(3.) MR. Ramamurthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner though wanted to confirm the merits of the case, finally submitted that on passing this order the Government had not provided any opportunities to him inspite of an order in his favour being reversed by the first respondent without notice to him. Though a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, this contention was not denied in the counter affidavit. However, MR. Ramamurthi, relies upon Section 153(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 to state that an opportunity which is required before any orders is passed is denied even though this Court directed only a Revision Pe"tition to be filed before the Government. Since the petitioner had already filed a Revision un"der Section 153 there cannot be any further Revision. The present petition by the 4th re'spondent filed before the first respondent must be treated as one falling under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 only.