Judgment :- The petitioner is an ex-vice president of the third respondent Co-operative Society. He has come forward to challenge the order passed by the first respondent Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Revision Application No.2873 of 1999 dated 01.11.2000 filed by the second respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The second respondent was dismissed by the Society by an order dated 04.08.1995 with effect from 29.10.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed revision application under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The first respondent being a revisional authority went into the entire issue and held that the dismissal order passed against the second respondent was not proper and opposed to the principles of natural justice. After setting aside the dismissal order, he directed reinstatement of the second respondent by an order dated 01.11.2000. Neither the Society represented by the Special Officer nor any person authorized by the Society had filed the present writ petition. On the contrary, the then Vice-President of the Society has filed the writ petition without any legal authorization. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 23.11.2000. Pending the writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this court that the second respondent had been reinstated into service. In that view of the matter, the prayer for interim relief was rejected by this Court on 17.01.2002. 4. On notice from this court, the first respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 08.01.2001. It was stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It was also stated that as against the order passed in the revision, a further revision will also lie to the State Government under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, which was not done by the Society. 5. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated Nil (December 2000) was filed. It was stated that the petitioner had filed the present writ petition with malafide intention and he has no locus standi to file the writ petition. If at all any person who was aggrieved about the order passed by the revisional authority can be only the Society. It must be properly authorised in terms of the by-laws to challenge the said order. The petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings has no locus standi to file such a writ petition. If at all any person who was aggrieved about the order passed by the revisional authority can be only the Society. It must be properly authorised in terms of the by-laws to challenge the said order. The petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings has no locus standi to file such a writ petition. 6. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.