Judgment: R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge, dated 08.07.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.10317 of 2014. 2. The appellant herein had filed the said Writ Petition, challenging the order of the respondent dated 10.04.2014, whereby the claim of the appellant for extension of lease period for three years was rejected. 3. The learned Judge, by order, dated 08.07.2014, had dismissed the said Writ Petition stating that the prayer for extension of lease period was misconceived and if the appellant had suffered any loss, it was open to him to seek for remission of the licence fee paid by him as per law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Judge. 5. It is seen that the appellant had approached this Court challenging the rejection for extension of lease period. However, the grievance of the appellant is that since he could not carry out the fishing operation during the lease period, he had suffered a loss. The learned Judge had rightly rejected the writ petition observing that it is for the appellant to work out his remedy for remission of licence fee paid by him and therefore, dismissed the writ petition. 6. We find no cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal fails. 7. In fine, this writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.