Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Junior Clerk in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society. The petitioner filed revision petition under Section 141 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 on 22.06.2013 seeking to regularise him in the post of Junior Clerk and provide him alternative employment, in case the Society is wound-up. 2. The Revisional Authority issued a notice dated 08.07.2013 directing the petitioner to show cause as to how the revision petition is maintainable under Section 141 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 since the revision is not filed against any order. 3. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 22.06.2013 filed under Section 141 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 24.01.2012 made in W.P.No.14774 of 2011. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The first respondent Revisional Authority has erroneously proceeded as if the revision could be entertained only against an order. The Revisional Authority can revise any action of the second respondent invoking Section 141 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. Section 141 of the Act is in pari materia with Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and this Court has considered Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act in the order dated 24.01.2012 in W.P.No.14774 of 2011, wherein this Court has held as follows: "1. ... 2. ... 3. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 153 of the Act on 10.01.2011 to the 1st respondent praying for the grant of promotion to the post of Senior clerk. Obviously, the petitioner did not challenge any order of promotion of anyone else. But misconstruing the provision of Section 153 as though the revisional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent is confined only to specific orders passed by the subordinates, the 1st respondent returned the revision petition, by a communication dated 21.04.2011 asking the petitioner to indicate the details of the order against which the revision was filed. Instead of re-presenting the revision, clarifying the legal position to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 4. In normal circumstances, whenever the papers are returned by quasi judicial authorities or administrative authorities, the papers should be represented and an order invited, before a writ is filed. Instead of re-presenting the revision, clarifying the legal position to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 4. In normal circumstances, whenever the papers are returned by quasi judicial authorities or administrative authorities, the papers should be represented and an order invited, before a writ is filed. It is not proper to come up against return of the papers without an adverse order. 5. However, the 1st respondent appears to have proceeded on a misconception about the scope of Section 153. The revisional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent is not merely confined only to any order passed by a subordinate. The revisional jurisdiction is for correcting all errors of jurisdiction and for setting right any illegality, infirmity or irregularity. Such illegalities may arise either out of acts of commission or acts of omission. In respect of the acts of omission, there could be no orders. Therefore, the 1st respondent is obliged to entertain a revision petition, even if it does not arise out of any particular order of the subordinate officer. 6. It is stated across the bar that after the revision petition filed by the petitioner was returned by the memo impugned in the writ petition, the 3rd respondent was promoted. But the promotion order was issued after the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, there is no impediment for the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to re-present the papers in the revision, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent shall entertain the revision petition, as one which is filed for a prayer for promotion, without insisting upon the petitioner to challenge any particular order. The 1st respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to the Society as well as to any person who may be aggrieved by any order and dispose of the revision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of re-presentation. There shall be no orders as to the costs." 6. The 1st respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to the Society as well as to any person who may be aggrieved by any order and dispose of the revision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of re-presentation. There shall be no orders as to the costs." 6. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders in the revision petition, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.