Allahabad High Court
MATSAJIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD AND 2 OTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
The review petition is without merit and is dismissed.
Summary
The applicants, Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd and two others, filed a review petition in the Allahabad High Court after their writ petition was disposed on 18 February 2026 and a Special Leave Petition was granted liberty to file a review. They claimed they were prepared to deposit the remaining balance of Rs. 90 lakh for fishing rights but had only deposited Rs. 49,39,024, yet the State did not grant the lease. The State opposed, stating that the original order allowed the successful bidder to withdraw and that the applicants offered no new material or error in the disposal order. The court observed that the review petition did not disclose any fresh evidence or apparent mistake and that the delay of 24 days in filing could be condoned but did not affect the merit. Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the review petition is maintainable in the absence of any new material or apparent error in the original disposal order.
- Whether the delay of 24 days in filing the review petition warrants condonation.
- Whether the applicants' willingness to deposit the remaining amount entitles them to the fishing lease.
Subjects
- review petition
- special leave petition
- fishing rights
- deposit
- high court
- mercy petition
- delay condoned
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 114 of
2026
Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd And 2 Other
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Other
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Review applicants were petitioners before us. Their writ petition was
disposed of on order dated 18th February, 2026. Review applicants had
sought Special Leave to Appeal from the Supreme Court. On order dated 1st
April, 2026 said Court disposed of the special leave petition (SLP) by
granting liberty to applicants, as would appear from the paragraphs in said
order, reproduced below.
"Taking note of the said submission, liberty is granted to the petitioners to
file a review petition before the High Court. As and when the review
petition is filed, we request the High Court to decide the review petition
expeditiously, considering the limited scope involved.
In the event of the review petition being dismissed, the petitioners are
given further liberty to challenge the main order as well.
With the aforesaid liberty, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of."
2. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicants
and submits, in effect his clients' application is a mercy petition. This is
because, though they had contended before us they were willing to deposit
Rs. 90 lacs for fishing rights being granted for the remaining period, they,
pursuant to our disposal order dated 18th February, 2026, deposited only Rs.
49,39,024/-. In spite thereof the fishing right/lease was not granted by State.
In the circumstances, the review.
3. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate Standing Counsel
CMRAD No. 114 of 2026
2
appears on behalf of State and opposes the review.
4. It appears from our disposal order, the fishing rights were to be granted
for a limited period. Mr. Srivastava submits, it was for 328 days. It also
appears from our disposal order that the bidder, who was declared
successful, by reason of the writ petition filed and interim order passed,
wanted refund of the bid amount of Rs. 81.50/- lacs because the period of
pendency had eaten into the lease period and, said bidder did not find it any
longer viable for him to defend and obtain the rights in respect of the balance
period. We allowed him to withdraw on our reasoning given in said disposal
order dated 18th February, 2026. There is also clear record of review
applicants' position that they were prepared to follow through on their bid of
Rs. 90 lacs, even for the remaining period.
5. Pursuant to said disposal order, we are not clear on the sequence of
events, whether review applicants first approached the Supreme Court and
then made the truncated deposit or otherwise. Notwithstanding, the review
application does not disclose any new material that with due diligence
applicants could not discover, for placing before us when the disposal order
was made. Mr. Srivastava has not been able to point out any error apparent
in our disposal order.
6. Stamp Reporter has reported delay of 24 days on the review application
filed. In view of applicants having had obtained liberty to file for review
from the Supreme Court, the delay is condoned. We find the review to be
without merit. It is dismissed.
May 5, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…