1 OD – 3 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RVWO/33/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026 AJAY RAJ AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Tapas Dutta, Adv. …for petitioner. Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr.Arijit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. N.G. Khaitan, Adv. ..for respondent.. Re : IA NO: GA/1/2026 The Court: Since there is a delay in filing the review application, an application being IA NO: GA/1/2026 has been taken out for condonation of 87 days delay in preferring the memorandum of review. After hearing the learned Advocate for the review applicant and Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondents, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in preferring the memorandum of review as the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in preferring the memorandum of review. Delay in preferring the memorandum of review is condoned. Accordingly, the application being IA NO: GA/1/2026 stands allowed. Department is directed to formally register the memorandum of review. 2 Re : RVWO/33/2026 This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2026 passed in WPO/52/2026. The learned Advocate appearing for the review applicant draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 13 of the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2026 and submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In course of his argument, he places reliance upon a letter dated 28th November, 2025, which is annexed at page 15 of the writ petition and several paragraphs more particularly paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and the compilation report of rent deposits and payment disbursal in support of such contention. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondents submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the order under review. After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the review applicant and Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondents, this Court finds that the review applicant is trying to re-argue the writ petition on merits. It is now well- settled that review is not an appeal in disguise. Accordingly, the memorandum of review being RVWO/33/2026 stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) sd/