[2025:RJ-JP:31648] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 357/2017 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15428/2010 Upendra Pandey Son Of Shri Shrikant Pandey, aged about 33 years, Resident Of 227, Hariom Nagar, Sushilpura, Sodala, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, Near Mini Secretariat, Collectorate Circle, Banipark, Jaipur 2. Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Aid Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.09/2018:- 1. Heard on application No. 09/2018 for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 64 days in filing of review petition is condoned. S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 357/2017:- 1. The present application has been filed seeking the review order dated 28.05.2012 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15428/2010 whereby the writ petition filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:31648] (2 of 3) [WRW-357/2017] petitioner was dismissed on the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by review petitioner that the writ petition was listed on 28.05.2012 along with some other transfer matters, whereas the issue involved in the instant writ petition is with regard to repatriation by cancelling the deputation of the petitioner. On account of bonafide reasons, nobody could appear on behalf of the petitioner. However, when the matter was called for hearing, statement was given by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the impugned order of repatriation has already been effected. On such statement, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the order of repatriation has not been carried out by the respondents till this date and as such only on account of misleading statement made by the respondent, an error apparent has crept in, therefore, he prayed for recalling the order dated 28.05.2012 and to restore the writ petition. 4. On perusal of order-sheets of the instant review petition, it reflects that even during the pendency of the review petition, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondents to show the status as to whether the petitioner was allowed to join the service on repatriation or not; but no such fact was clarified by the respondents. 5. In view of above, where the petition was dismissed in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner and only on statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, which [2025:RJ-JP:31648] (3 of 3) [WRW-357/2017] has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, I find it to be a fit case to review the order dated 28.05.2012. 6. Thus, the review petition is allowed and the order dated 28.05.2012 is recalled. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15428/2010 is restored to its original number. 7. Registry is directed to list the writ petition. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/49