JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. Since both the review petitions arise out of the same order, hence, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The material facts for consideration of both the review petitions are that a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9327/2019 was filed in the name of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli through its Founder Trustee Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare on 21.05.2019 with the following prayer:

“Your humble petitioner most respectfully prayed that impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Case No. 1/2019 titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 be quashed and set aside and be pleased to grant interim relief with regard to execution and operation of order dated 07.06.2013 passed in case No. 19/2013 titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust section 23 Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 till decision of aforesaid case No. 1/2019 titled.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

3. This Court on hearing of counsel for the petitioner issued notices of the writ petition to the respondents vide order dated 24.05.2019, which was made returnable on 4.7.2019 and as an interim relief, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.06.2013 so also further proceedings on an application under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’) were stayed. On filing of the notices by the petitioner, same were issued by the Office on 29.05.2019. The notices of writ petition to respondent No. 2 were served on 27.06.2019 and the notices of respondent No. 4 were also served on 28.06.2019. The notices of respondent No. 3 was served on 14.06.2019, though Vakalatnama was submitted on his behalf on 29.05.2019. There is no report of service of notice upon the respondent No. 1 whose inaction for passing any order for interim relief on 25.03.2019 is under challenge in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

4. The respondent No. 2 (in writ petition) filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 24.05.2019. However, the matter was heard finally in absence of respondents No. 1,2 and 4 and after conclusion of the arguments, the matter was closed for orders and on 12.07.2019 this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 07.06.2013 and 25.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, Jaipur.

5. Before proceedings with the main arguments on the merits and demerits of both the review petitions, this Court would like to decide the issue ‘Whether this Court can hear and decide the review petitions against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the other Judge?” because the counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has raised an issue that when a remedy of appeal is available to the review petitioners, the review petitions in connection with the order passed by one Judge, should not be heard and decided by other Judge?

6. As stated above, the notices were issued in the writ petition on 24.05.2019 and without appearance of the affected persons i.e. the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, the writ petition was heard on 4.7.2019 when it was listed for orders on an application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and arguments were closed and the judgment was reserved. Finally, the order was passed on 12.07.2019, on the day the Hon’ble Judge who passed the order under consideration in both the review petitions retired. In such circumstances, it was not possible to place both the review petitions before the same Judge as the learned Judge who passed the order dated 12.07.2019 stood retired on the very same day.

It is also pertinent to mention here that Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, clearly provides that a review application can be placed before the other Judge,