JUDGMENT T. Raja, J. 1. The present review application has been filed by Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust represented by its Secretary and another donor challenging the correctness of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.28680 of 2006 dated 11.9.2007, wherein the first respondent sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the fifth respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai to investigate into the various irregularities allegedly committed by Dr. D.Viswanathan, the then Vice Chancellor of Anna University, Chennai including that of admitting ineligible students and gross misappropriation of funds running to crores of rupees and collecting money from various colleges. This Court, after considering the various submissions made by the parties impleaded in the writ petition, disposed off the writ petition in terms of the following order:- "(i) The Government quota and the founders/donor's quota effected through various resolutions of the Anna University are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) As the admission of students through the donors/founder's quota is already complete for the year 2007-08, they are allowed to continue their course, but from next academic year, the founders/donor's quota shall be dispensed with. (iii) Government quota of 2% shall be filled up through the Single Window System in accordance with the merit. (iv) The admission of students through Consortium of Industries category is valid, subject to maximum of 15% intake including NRI." At the time of passing the aforesaid order, the review applicants were not even impleaded as necessary parties in the writ petition. Therefore, aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2007 passed in the W.P.No.28680 of 2006, the review applicants filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Unfortunately, the said special leave petition was dismissed for default, for not being prosecuted by the applicants. Thereafter, the present review application has been filed taking several grounds, more particularly, alleging that the order in the writ petition was passed even without hearing the applicants. 2. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the review applicants, after elaborately narrating the facts that made this Court to pass the final order in the aforesaid writ petition, by taking us through the cause title of the writ petition, explained to us that the applicants were not even impleaded as necessary parties. 2. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the review applicants, after elaborately narrating the facts that made this Court to pass the final order in the aforesaid writ petition, by taking us through the cause title of the writ petition, explained to us that the applicants were not even impleaded as necessary parties. When the applicants were not impleaded as necessary parties, no adverse order, legally, could be passed. On this basis, it was further contended that the entire order passed by this Court is liable to be recalled and the writ petition has to be heard afresh. Adding further, he pleaded, without following the fundamental principles of natural justice viz., audi alteram partem, this Court, while disposing off the writ petition, has completely denied the grant of an opportunity to the applicants, as a result, a huge and irreparable prejudice has been caused to them. In fact, had there been a notice given to the applicants, the entire gamut of the issue would have been resolved amicably without passing any adverse order against them. As the first respondent, who filed the writ petition under 'PIL' has not even impleaded these applicants and this Court also, inadvertently overlooking the importance of hearing the applicants, wrongly passed the order. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed before this Court to recall the order passed in W.P.No.28680 of 2006 dated 11.9.2007 and to give a full opportunity to these applicants to place all facts before the Court. 3. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, fairly conceding to the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the review applicants on the issue of non-impleadment of the applicants in W.P.No.28680 of 2006, submitted before this Court that it is fair and proper to hear the review applicants afresh in the writ petition by recalling the impugned order. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent is recorded. 4. When the learned senior counsel for the review applicants narrated that the first applicant had donated 325 acres of land at the time of establishment of the Institute and further land of 400 acres, when it was converted into an Institute, the Anna University permitted the first applicant to nominate 10 seats in the matter of admission. 4. When the learned senior counsel for the review applicants narrated that the first applicant had donated 325 acres of land at the time of establishment of the Institute and further land of 400 acres, when it was converted into an Institute, the Anna University permitted the first applicant to nominate 10 seats in the matter of admission. Similarly, the second applicant had also donated 56 acres of land for the establishment of the Madras Institute of Technology, Chennai. As a token of honouring the philanthropists who have contributed to the growth of education, the Anna University permitted the second applicant to nominate 5 seats in the matter of admission. When the huge, voluminous and precious lands were donated for the cause of education to the State Government, before taking away all these benefits, this Court failed to give any fair and proper opportunity to the review applicants. When this Court did not deem it fit to implead the review applicants as necessary parties to the proceeding, the approach adopted in the impugned order is a clear violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice viz., audi alteram partem. 5. Today the law is well settled that no departure from the audi alteram partem rule can be compromised. In other words, hear the other side before he is affected has become the ordinary rule, which regulates all procedures and with that result, the persons, who are likely to be affected by the proposed action, must be afforded an opportunity of being heard as to why that action should not be taken. We are convinced that a departure from this fundamental rule of natural justice cannot be slighted even remotely, particularly, in the present case, when the review applicants had been deprived of 10 seats and 5 seats respectively for filling up the admission in the educational institution by the impugned order, without giving them any notice or opportunity, hence, the same is required to be interfered with. 6. 6. Although several other important grounds have been taken in the review application, this Court, finding that the impugned order challenged in the present review application, as highlighted above, has been passed cancelling the grant of 10 seats and 5 seats respectively in the matter of admission in favour of the review applicants, holding such approach is running contrary to the principles of natural justice, which demands a fair notice before a person is condemned, is inclined to remove the error indicated by the learned senior counsel for the review applicants. The non-issuance of notice to the review applicants has also been admitted by the first respondent herein. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, as we are also satisfied with the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the review applicants, the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is liable to be recalled. Accordingly, recalling the order dated 11.9.2007 passed in W.P.No.28680 of 2007, in the interest of justice, we restore the writ petition to file. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the present review applicants are ordered to be impleaded as the sixth and seventh respondents in the writ petition. As prayed, the newly impleaded sixth and seventh respondents may file their counter affidavit within four weeks. Registry is directed to carry out the amendment and post the writ petition for hearing on 13.8.2013. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 are closed.