The court must consider pending matters before ordering implementation in judgment review cases.

ORDER

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 The review petitioner is the 11^th respondent in W.P(C).No.43334/2024, which has been filed by the 1^st respondent in the review petition to implement Ext.P7 order produced in the writ petition, expeditiously. The respondents 2 to 13 in the review petition are respondents 1 to 10, 12 and 13 in the writ petition. By the impugned judgment, this Court ordered Ext.P7 order to be implemented in accordance with law, at any rate, within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. The review petitioner asserts in the review petition that, assailing Ext.P7 order, he has filed W.P(C) No.41460/2024 before this Court, which is pending consideration. By Annexure A12 order, dated 22.11.2024, this Court had recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent in the review petition that no steps would be taken to implement Ext.P7 order. It is without considering the pendency of the above writ petition that this Court had directed Ext.P7 order to be implemented. The petitioner has raised valid contentions in W.P(C) No.41460/2024. If Ext.P7 order is implemented, it would render W.P(C) No.41460/2024 redundant. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment ordering the implementation of Ext.P7 order. Hence, the impugned judgment may be recalled and the writ petition may be heard on its merits.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

4. By the impugned judgment, this Court has ordered the implementation of Ext.P7 order. The materials on record, especially Annexure A12 order, reveal that Ext.P7 order is under challenge in the above writ petition, and this Court had recorded the undertaking of the Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent that no steps would be taken to implement Ext.P7 order.

5. Undisputedly, it is without considering the pendency of W.P(C) No.41460/2024 that this Court passed the impugned judgment. This, according to me, is an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the judgment to be reviewed.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the review petition and recall the judgment dated 10.02.2025. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, but has recalled the judgment in view of the pendency of the connected writ petition. It will be upto the parties to get the writ petitions consolidated and jointly heard.

Sd/-