ORDER

25.07.2022 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Purkayashtha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner’s prayer is to review the order dated 08.06.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3632/2018, by which the writ petitioner’s counsel (respondent No. 5) had withdrawn the writ petition without obtaining any instructions from his client.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the issue relates to whether the transfer of the respondent No. 4 was at his own request or in public interest. He submits that in compliance with the order dated 24.04.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 1847/2012, the State respondents were to consider whether the transfer of the respondent No. 4 had been made in public interest or at his own request. The State respondents vide order dated 10.04.2013 took a decision that the transfer of the respondent No. 4 had been made at his own request. The challenge made to the order dated 10.04.2013 issued by the State respondents in WP(C) No. 6716/2013 by the respondent No. 4, culminated with the decision of the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.02.2018, directing the State respondents to pass a fresh order as required by the earlier order passed in WP(C) No. 1847/2012.

4. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that consequent to the order dated 27.02.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6716/2013, the State respondents issued the impugned order dated 05.05.2018, which stated that the respondent No. 4 had been transferred in public interest. The said order dated 05.05.2018 had been challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3632/2018. However, as stated earlier, the writ petition was withdrawn, without taking the liberty to file afresh by the respondent No. 5, who was the counsel for the writ petitioner.

5. Mr. A.K. Purkayashtha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the learned Single Judge in his Judgment & Order dated 27.02.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6716/2013, had in paragraph No. 9, come to a finding that the transfer of the respondent No. 4 was in public interest. The matter was remanded back to the State respondents, to pass a fresh order in terms of the order passed in WP(C) No. 1847/2012, only to make a correction with regard to the State respondents decision made vide order dated 10.04.2013. He also submits that the Judgment & Order dated 27.02.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6716/2013 was challenged by way of a writ appeal, bearing filing No. 11305/2018. The application for condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the appeal, vide I.A(C) No. 1103/2019, was withdrawn vide order dated 25.10.2019 by the writ appellant (review petitioner). He accordingly submits that the review petition should be dismissed.

6. On considering the issue raised by the counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the only issue to be decided at the moment is whether the counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent No. 5) had withdrawn the writ petition without taking instructions from his client. As the affidavit of the respondent No. 5 shows that he had not obtained instructions from his client, before withdrawing the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the review petition should be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3632/2018 is hereby recalled. The review petition is accordingly allowed and WP(C) No. 3632/2018 is restored to file.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant