Judgment : The petitioner was dismissed from the post of Secretary from the fourth respondent Society 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 Government. 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 impugned order of the first respondent/Government made in G.O. (D) No. 328, Housing and Urban Development (Co.Op. (2) Department dated 5.7.2005 that there was another Revision 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. The petitioner has been in kept dark at about all these proceedings. To the dismay of petitioner, the Government by the impugned order dated 5.7.2005 set aside the order of the Revisional Authority and restored termination of the services of the petitioner. 4. 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 Cooperative 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 Petition to be filed before the Government. Since the petitioner had already filed a Revision under Section 153 there cannot be any further Revision. Ramamurthi, relies upon Section 153(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative 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 Petition to be filed before the Government. Since the petitioner had already filed a Revision under Section 153 there cannot be any further Revision. The present petition by the 4th respondent filed before the first respondent must be treated as one falling under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 only. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a Review if it confirms the order of Revision, the question of giving any opportunity may not arise. But in the present case, the petitioner having had the benefit of reinstatement and consequential benefits, the order obtained by him was advantageous and when it is said to be revised by the reviewing authority it cannot be done without notice to him. When a statutory authority exercises his function under a law no prejudicial order can be passed without notice to the concerned. Therefore, in the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner not only asserts violation of principles of natural justice but also wanted this Court to go into the merits of this case. But, when an authority fails to exercise his power under a law he must be directed to redo the exercise. 6. Accordingly, the order of the State Government made in G.O.(D) No. 328 dated 5.7.2005. Housing and Urban Development (Co. Op(d) Department is set aside. The Reviewing authority exercising power under Section 154 (being the State Government) should give notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. This exercise shall be undertaken by the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Writ petition disposed of.