WP(C) 3497/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Nath, lear ned counsel for the review petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Katakey, learned counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners. This review application has been filed in respect of the order dated 21. 06.0 by which the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3497/06 has been allowed. In t he writ petition the challenge made was to the order by which the present review petitioner was granted extension of settlement period of the fishery in questio n. Such extension was granted long after expiry of the term of the earlier perio d. It has been held that the extension was unwarranted, more particularly, when the tender process was already initiated and the parties responded to the same. In the order it was also provided that the official respondents would fi nalise the tender process in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. N ow the instant review petition has been filed by the party in whose favour the e xtension was granted. After setting aside the order of extension this Court prov ided for early finalization of the tender process. According to the petitioner the tender process should be initiated afresh. The tender process cannot be fi nalised in view of the interim order in force. However, with the disposal of th e writ petition, the tender process got revived and accordingly direction was is sued for finalisation of the same as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Katakey, lea rned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender process is at the verge of finalisation. The ground urged by the review petitioners, in my considered opinion, is no ground for review. Consequently, the review application is dismissed.