1. Petitioner seeks review of the order dated: 27-07-2001 passed in SWP No: 138/ 2001, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. Review of the order is sought on the ground that the petitioner has not been heard whereas the court took up the matter and decided it and that the writ petition has been decided without service of respondent No. 2 at whose instance the order of transfer of the petitioner has been passed, which is evident from the endorsement of the impugned order. 2. Petitioner, Stock Assistant, was transferred and posted at R.P. Check Post, Lakhanpur vice Sh. Chaman Lal, Stock Assistant vide order dated: 30-12-2000. The petitioner has joined against the post. On 22-01-2001 respondent No. 3 modified order on the ground that petitioner has already given two tenures at Lakhanpur and posted respondent No. 5, Raja Ram, in place of the petitioner. This order was challenged by means of writ petition which has been dismissed without reply affidavit of the respondents, though the petition was admitted on August 20, 2001. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Raina, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 has submitted that respondent No.3 was competent to pass order dated: 22-01-2001. Both orders dated: 30-12-2001 and 22-01-2001 have been passed by the same Officer who was aware that petitioner had already served two tenures at a particular place. Order of dismissal of the writ petition requires no review as it does not suffer for any illegality. 4. The allegation against Respondent No.2 is that order dated: 22-01-2001 has been issued at his instance. Mr. Baldev Singh has appeared on his behalf but has not filed counter, controverting the allegations and the averments of the writ petition. The petition has been decided without knowing the stand of the respondents, whether to accept or deny the allegations levelled in the memo of the petition. 5. Mr. Slathia also relied upon, 1997 KLJ 386, titled Manmohan Lal Vs. State and others, passed by this court, wherein petitioner was transferred as desired by the Deputy Minister for Education. Dealing with that situation, the court observed that transferring authority should apply its mind and act on its own, in Administrative or public interest but where the power is exercised with oblique motive, the impugned order amounts to collourable exercise of power. Dealing with that situation, the court observed that transferring authority should apply its mind and act on its own, in Administrative or public interest but where the power is exercised with oblique motive, the impugned order amounts to collourable exercise of power. A copy of the impugned order has been endorsed to the Private Secretary of the Minister which is suggestive that the transfer has been directed at the instance of the said respondents. This is required to be seen in the writ petition. The disposal of the petition without waiting for filing counter-affidavit by the respondents against whom allegations have been levelled amounts to a mistake on the face of the record. In view of the above, I feel a case for review is made out. The order under review is recalled and the respondents are directed to file counter within four weeks. Registry to list the writ petition before the court, for consideration.