Dismissed¶20

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and 8 Other

Allahabad HC4 May 2026CMRAD/114/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, CMRAD No. 114 of 2026, Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd v. State of U.P.; review of disposal order dated 18.02.2026 in writ petition on fishing rights/lease; scope of review — no new material, no error apparent on face of record; delay of 24 days condoned on basis of Supreme Court liberty in disposed SLP dated 01.04.2026; amounts: bid Rs. 90 lacs, deposit Rs. 49,39,024/-, successful bidder's refunded bid Rs. 81.50 lacs; bench Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.; decided May 5, 2026; review dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Only condonation of the 24-day delay in filing; no substantive relief — the review application was dismissed as without merit. ¶20

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and 8 Other — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 114 of 2026

¶3

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd And 2 Other

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 8 Other .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶9

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.

¶10

"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.

¶11

In the event of the review petition being dismissed, the petitioners are given further liberty to challenge the main order as well.

¶12

With the aforesaid liberty, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of."

¶13

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.

¶14

Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate Standing Counsel

¶15

CMRAD No. 114 of 2026

¶16

¶17

appears on behalf of State and opposes the review.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

May 5, 2026 sailesh

¶22

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶23

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and 8 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and 8 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrawati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar vs State Public Service Tribunal and 3 Others

Shubham Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sneha Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others