Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88966-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 205 of 2025 Applicant :- Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development Authority And Another Opposite Party :- M/S Sugat Social Welfare Society And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shreeprakash Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Shri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the applicants (respondent no.3 in the writ petition) and Shri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite parties (petitioners in the writ petition). 2. The instant review application has been filed seeking review of our order dated 17.04.2025. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged a cancellation notice dated 23.11.2024 issued by respondent no.5 cancelling the allotment of Industrial Plot No.A-24, Industrial Area, Pilakhani, Saharanpur. The order stipulated that the restoration application would be considered only if filed within 30 days, as per the prevalent policy. 4. The specific case of the petitioners was that they applied for restoration by registered post on 22.12.2024 i.e., well within 30 days, however, the Authority without deciding their application, wrongly proceeded with the auction of the plot. 5. Shri Pankaj Rai, Advocate has appeared on behalf of UPSIDA and he stated that the application was not considered, as it was not submitted by online mode. He also stated that the bids, in pursuance of the advertisement, have not been accepted and that the Authority would re-advertise the plot. 6. The objection of the respondent-Authority that the application was not considered as it was not submitted by online mode was over-ruled and keeping in mind the fact that the bids, in pursuance of the advertisement, were not finalized and the Authority had decided to re-advertise the plot, we disposed of the writ petition by providing that the application of the petitioner for restoration submitted by registered post on 22.12.2024 would be decided by the Authority, if not decided already, before proceeding for re- auction. 7. Now, a review application has been filed by the Development Authority stating that the application dated 22.12.2024 had already been decided and that the writ petition was filed by concealment of material facts. 8. As noted above, the stand taken by Shri Pankaj Rai, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Development Authority on the date, the writ petition was heard, was that the application for restoration was not considered as it was not submitted by online mode. Even, in the review application, it is not disputed that such a statement was made by counsel for UPSIDA but it is stated in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit that he was not aware of the application having been decided. 9. As such, we are of the considered opinion that there was no attempt on part of the petitioners to mislead the court nor any concealment. In fact, the Development Authority, which was aware of the entire facts, should have informed the court that the restoration application had been rejected by it but the counsel appearing on its behalf took an incorrect stand. 10. The review application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad