[2025:RJ-JP:43739-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 168/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7804/2025 Mahendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ram Narayan Gupa, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 27, Model Town, Kherli Phatak, Kota. ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta, General Manager, Western Central Railway (WCR), Jabalpur (M.P.). 2. Shri Mahesh Tiwari, Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 31/10/2025 1. The present Review Petition (Writ) has been preferred seeking review of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court. 2. While on the said date, it was not brought to the knowledge of this Court about the judgment already rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10302/2024 (Brajendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. vs. Giridhar Aramane & Anr.), decided on 02.12.2024, in review, the same has been placed before us. 3. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as under : “1.We find that in view of the judgment of this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and [2025:RJ-JP:43739-DB] (2 of 2) [WRW-168/2025] Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, an order holding that the respondents are not guilty of contempt was not an appealable order. 2.In view of the law laid down by this Court, the only remedy and that too in exceptional cases to a person aggrieved by the order of the tribunal was to challenge the same by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. 3.In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, since the administrative tribunal is a tribunal subordinate to the High Court in its territorial jurisdiction, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.On this ground alone, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the writ petition of the appellant herein in accordance with law. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 5.Taking into consideration that the appellant has been litigating for considerable period, we request the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six months.” 4. In view of the above judgment, we find that our order dated 05.08.2025 deserves to be reviewed and we, accordingly, allow this Review Petition (Civil) and direct the Registry to restore D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7804/2025 at its original number and list the same on 17.11.2025. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/1