JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - In review petition being SB Review Petition (Writ) No.220/2019 on 04.08.2021, this Court had observed thus :- "I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent No.1/1 in person and have perused the orders passed by this Court as well as by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on account of conduct, imposed the cost, which was to be deposited with the Legal Services Authority and when the writ petition came up before this Court, subject to the petitioners complying with the directions, the imposition of the cost was stayed, however, on account of delay in compliance of the directions, the writ petition was dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, wherein the orders passed by the Tribunal have been complied with though with some delay and there is a direction of recovery of the said amount personally from the officers, which may affect their service career, the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by this Court is reviewed. The same to the extent of dismissal of the writ petition only against the imposition of the cost, is recalled. SBCW No. 18024/2018 is accepted only to the extent cost has been imposed on the petitioners by order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal, which shall stand set aside. The review petition stands disposed of accordingly." 2. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that while hearing the review petition, respondent No.1 Smt. Laxmi Devi was present in Court. She herself had stated that since the award of the tribunal has been implemented, she does not insist for payment of cost imposed by the learned tribunal. 3. By way of order dated 05.02.2019, 06.03.2019 and order dated 04.08.2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed the writ petition on merit, however, notices were ordered to be issued for the cost of Rs.11,000/- that was imposed by the Tribunal. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the review petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be partly allowed, even without issuing notices to the other party. 5. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the review petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be partly allowed, even without issuing notices to the other party. 5. The same is being done in the interest of justice because if the notices were to be issued to the respondent only for the purpose of deletion of the cost, she will be required to appear and bear expenses of the litigation. 6. That apart, since the cost is to be deposited before the Legal Services Authority, in the opinion of this Court, the same can be obliterated even in absence of the respondent. 7. The writ petition is, thus, allowed to the extent of imposition of cost of Rs.11,000/-. 8. The order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur stands modified to the extent that the petitioners are not required to deposit the cost of Rs.11,000/- with the Legal Services Authority as indicated in para No.9 of the impugned order. The said direction is deleted from the order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.