HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 114 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd And 2 Other .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Other .....Opposite Party(s) 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 CMRAD No. 114 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad