A. KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by one Shri Pradip Kumar Bhadra for combined reliefs. While praying for leave to intervene and to be added as a respondent in the pending writ application filed by the Great Gopalpur Tea Company Ltd. and Shri Radheshyam Agarwala, Shri Bhadra has also prayed for vacation and/or modification of the interim order dated 3rd September, 1991, directing maintenance of status quo in respect of possession of the tea garden as on that date to continue till the hearing of the application. ( 2 ) WHEN the application was taken up for consideration, it was decided to first of all dispose of the applicant's prayer for being added as a respondent in the writ proceedings. ( 3 ) APPEARING in support of such prayer, Mr. P. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, urged that the tea garden, popularly known as Saogaon (Sonali) Tea Garden, had been lying abandoned for a long time, and on Shri Bhadra's prayer for grant of a lease of the said tea garden in his favour, the State Government, through the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri, entrusted the tea garden to Shri Bhadra by an order dated 31st August, 1994. A copy of the said order has been made Annexure "f" to the application under consideration. ( 4 ) MR. Das then urged that Shri Bhadra had already been granted leave to intervene in the contempt proceedings arising out of the above-mentioned order of status quo passed on 3rd September, 1981. ( 5 ) IT was also submitted that in another writ application filed by the petitioner No. 2 herein, the applicant herein was given leave to intervene and was subsequently also added as a party to the said proceedings on the basis of the above-mentioned order dated 31st August, 1994, entrusting the tea garden to the applicant. ( 6 ) MR. Das urged that having regard to the rights which had accrued to him by the said order, the applicant was a necessary party, or at least a proper party, in whose presence the writ petition was required to be heard. ( 7 ) MR. ( 6 ) MR. Das urged that having regard to the rights which had accrued to him by the said order, the applicant was a necessary party, or at least a proper party, in whose presence the writ petition was required to be heard. ( 7 ) MR. Das submitted that on the basis of the said order of 31st August, 1994, Shri Bhadra had already invested large sums of money, and moreover, his application for grant of lease of the tea garden was pending with the State Government, as would be evident from the said order itself. Consequently, according to Mr. Das, Shri Bhadra was highly interested in the final outcome of the writ petition and ought to be added as a respondent therein, so that the entire disputes relating to the settlement of the tea garden could be completely and effectively adjudicated upon in his presence. ( 8 ) MR. Das urged that Shri Bhadra should be given the opportunity to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant facts resulting in the order of 31st August, 1994. ( 9 ) APPEARING for the State, the learned Government Pleader supported Mr. Das's Submissions and reiterated that in view of the order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri, on 31st August, 1994, certain rights had accrued to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned tea garden, and he was, therefore, both a necessary and a proper party in whose presence the writ petition should be heard and finally disposed of. ( 10 ) OPPOSING Shri Bhadra's prayer for being added as a party to the writ proceedings, Mr. Arun Prokash Sircar, learned Senior Advocate, firstly submitted that such prayer could not be allowed as the aforesaid order of 31st August, 1994, did not confer any right in the tea garden on the applicant, As had been urged on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Sircar urged that by virtue of the said order only an interim arrangement was contemplated for the management of the tea garden and nothing more. According to Mr. Sircar, no personal interest having been created in favour of Shri Bhadra, he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ proceedings. ( 11 ) MR. Mr. Sircar urged that by virtue of the said order only an interim arrangement was contemplated for the management of the tea garden and nothing more. According to Mr. Sircar, no personal interest having been created in favour of Shri Bhadra, he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ proceedings. ( 11 ) MR. Sircar urged that the writ application filed by Shri Radheshyam Agarwala arose out of an order in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which related to a law and order situation in the tea garden and did not involve any adjudication as to the rights of the parties. Mr. Sircar urged that in such a scenario, there might have been some justification in the applicant being added as a party to the writ proceedings, since an attempt had been made by the State Government to put him in possession of the tea garden. ( 12 ) MR. Sircar urged that the situation in the instant case was different as no legal right in the tea garden itself had been created in the applicant's favour by virtue of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on 31st August, 1994, and the lis involved in these proceedings neither concerned the applicant, nor would a decision thereupon affect him in any way. Mr. Sircar reiterated that the right to manage the tea garden temporarily, by way of an interim arrangement, did not make him either a necessary or proper party to the writ proceedings. ( 13 ) IN support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Sircar firstly referred to and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New Kenilworth Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Ashoka Industries Ltd. , reported in (1995) 1 SCC at page 161, in the said case, while considering the rights of a mortgagor under section 60 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Supreme Court also had occasion to consider as to whether the appellant, who by an interim arrangement came into possession of the property, pending sale thereof, was a necessary party in the writ proceedings. Holding in the negative, the Supreme Court observed that by virtue of such interim arrangement pending sale of the property, the licensee did not acquire any right other than that to be in possession as licensee pending the settlement of the dispute between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and, accordingly, he was not a necessary party in the writ proceedings. ( 14 ) IN this connection. Mr. Sircar also referred to a bench decision of this Court in Mukund Shah v. M/s Golden polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 1979 (1) CLJ at page 258, where the appellant's prayer for being added as a party to the writ petition was disallowed on the ground that he had failed to establish that without his presence the question involved in the Civil Rule could not be decided completely, since he had no proprietary right or any other direct interest and claimed a more commercial interest in the transaction forming the subject matter of the writ petition. ( 15 ) MR. Sircar also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, reported in AIR 1958 SC at page 886, wherein it was observed that in order that a person may be added, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of litigation. ( 16 ) MR. Sircar lastly contended that since the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo was still subsisting, the subsequent order passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, was illegal and non-est in the eye of law, Mr. Sircar urged that the said order could not and did not create any interest in the applicant's favour and had, in any event, been stayed. Mr. Sircar referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyabrata Biswas and others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others, reported in AIR 1994 SC at page 1837, where it was held that creation of a sub-lease while an order of status quo was in force, was illegal, even if such sub-lease was created by a person who was not a party to the interlocutory application for status quo. ( 17 ) ON the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Sircar urged that Shri Bhadra's prayer for being added as a respondent in the writ proceedings was liable to be rejected. ( 18 ) REPLYING to Mr. Sircar's submissions, Mr. ( 17 ) ON the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Sircar urged that Shri Bhadra's prayer for being added as a respondent in the writ proceedings was liable to be rejected. ( 18 ) REPLYING to Mr. Sircar's submissions, Mr. P. K. Das urged that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sircar were not applicable to file instant case. Mr. Das urged that the decision in the New Kenilworth Hotel's case (supra) was in the context of the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the mortgagor's right of redemption vis-a-vis the Corporation's right to act as owner of the mortgaged property. Mr. Das urged that in the facts of that case, since a personal right of redemption was involved the Supreme Court felt that the appellant whose offer had not till then crystallised and whose right In the property was till inchoate, could not be said to be a necessary party in the writ proceedings. ( 19 ) MR. Das urged that similar were the views expressed in the other cases cited by Mr. Sircar, since in those cases also the applicants were unable to establish that they had a direct interest In the subject matter of the pending proceedings. ( 20 ) MR. Das, on the other hand, referred to the decision of a four Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, and Another, reported in AIR 1963 SC at page 786, wherein it was, inter alia, observed that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the issues involved in the proceeding. ( 21 ) MR. ( 21 ) MR. Das next refereed to a decision of a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parisad v. Gyan Devi, reported in (1995)2 SCC at page 326, where relying upon the earlier decision in Udit Narain Singh Molpaharla case (supra), the Supreme Court held that since a question of enhancement of compensation was involved, the local authority which would have to bear the costs of acquisition, was a proper party in the proceedings, and it should be given an opportunity to oppose the claim for enhancement of compensation. ( 22 ) MR. Das lastly relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal in Gurtner v. Circuit, reported in (1968) 1 All England Reports at page 328, wherein-while considering the claim of the plaintiff who was injured in a motorcycle accident, the Court of Appeal directed that the Motor Insurers' Bureau be added as defendants in the action, on their undertaking to pay any damages that might be awarded to the plaintiff, on the reasoning that the Court had discretion to add a party to an action if he was likely to be affected in his legal rights or his pocket by the determination of the dispute. ( 23 ) MR. Das urged that for similar reasons, Shri Bhadra should be added as a party to the writ proceedings, or at least be allowed to intervene therein, inasmuch as, his legal rights flowing from his application for grant of lease and the order dated 31st August, 1994, could be affected by the ultimate decision in the writ application and also having regard to the large amounts invested by him in terms of the said order. ( 24 ) ON consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited in support thereof, I am not inclined to add Sri P. K. Bhadra as a party to the writ proceedings, since, in my view, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party thereto. ( 25 ) AS has been pointed out hereinbefore, Shri Bhadra's claim to be added as a party to the writ proceedings flows from his application for grant of lease of the tea garden and the order dated 31st August, 1994, issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri. ( 25 ) AS has been pointed out hereinbefore, Shri Bhadra's claim to be added as a party to the writ proceedings flows from his application for grant of lease of the tea garden and the order dated 31st August, 1994, issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri. The said application and order, in my view, does not confer any right and or interest in Shri Bhadra's favour in the tea garden itself and only authorises Shri Bhadra to run the said tea garden purely by way of an interim arrangement on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said order, pending disposal of the issue of grant of fresh lease of the tea garden by the State Government. ( 26 ) FOR the sake of convenience the order of 31st August, 1994, is reproduced hereinbelow :-GOVERNMENT of West Bengal office of the District magistrate and collector, Jalpaiguri. MEMO No. 129/t dated, Jalpaiguri, the 31st August, 1994. FROM : the District Magistrate and Collector. Jalpaiguri. TO : Shri P. K. Bhadra mill Road, P. O. Falakata, dist. Jalpaiguri. SUB: Interim arrangement of running the Saogaon (Sonali)tea Garden. REF: Your application dated 25-7-94 addressed to the collector, Jalpaiguri. With reference to above, it is hereby ordered that Shri P. K. Bhadra, Mill Road, Falakata is hereby entrusted to run the Saogan (Sonali) Tea garden as an interim arrangement on the terms and conditions appended hereunder, until further order. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1. HE shall be bound to abide by all terms and conditions decided and imposed on by the Government, or Board of Revenue or the Collector Jalpaiguri. 2. THE present charge of the garden conferred on him is a purely temporary arrangement. And if he, in future, fails to comply with, or violate any terms and condition decided by the Government the assignment may be redetermined and shall be bound to give up all charges of the garden. 3. HE shall sincerely maintain the plucking and sale of the tea-leaf and cash transaction of the garden including payment of wages and other legitimate dues of the tea garden. Since the matter of issue of a fresh lease of the garden is lying pending with the Government, the undersigned will have liberty to make any other arrangement in compliance of the Government's decision in this regard. Since the matter of issue of a fresh lease of the garden is lying pending with the Government, the undersigned will have liberty to make any other arrangement in compliance of the Government's decision in this regard. Shri Bhadra will give a report on the garden immediately after starting functioning as per this order. (D. Rath) district Magistrate and Collectors, jalpaiguri arrangement in compliance of the Government's decision in this regard. Shri Bhadra will give a report on the garden immediately after starting functioning as per this order. (D. Rath)district Magistrate and Collectors, jalpaiguri ( 27 ) FROM the aforesaid order it will be seen that Shri Bhadra was entrusted to run the tea garden on the terms and conditions set out in the said order. The said terms and conditions, however, do not spell out the extent of financial involvement, if any, of the applicant in the running of the tea garden. On the other hand, from the said terms and conditions it would appear that the applicant was to run the Tea Estate out of the usufruct's thereof, namely, plucking and sale of tea. ( 28 ) THERE is, therefore, on basis for the submission made on behalf of the applicant, as also the State Government that the applicant had been required to invest large sums of money of his own in the running of the tea garden. Even if that has been done, there is no basis in the aforesaid order for such investment by the applicant and it must be deemed that he has acted beyond the scope of the authority vested in him under the said order. ( 29 ) IN order to resolve the lis involved in the writ petition it will be necessary for this Court to consider as to whether there is any subsisting lease between the writ petitioners and the State Government, and, in the event such lease was subsisting, whether a fresh lease could be granted in respect of the tea garden. The Court will not be called upon to consider as to whether the applicant had acquired any right by virtue of the interim arrangement contemplated in the aforesaid order of 31st August, 1994. The Court will also not be called upon to consider as to whether the applicant's prayer for grant of lease of the tea garden should be granted or not by the State Government. The Court will also not be called upon to consider as to whether the applicant's prayer for grant of lease of the tea garden should be granted or not by the State Government. The cause of action in the instant writ petition is totally different from such cause of action as the applicant may ultimately have, in the event the State Government is able to grant a fresh lease in respect of the tea garden in question. In other words, as observed in Mukund Shah's case (supra), the presence of the applicant, is not necessary for a complete and proper decision of the writ application, since he neither has any proprietory right or any direct interest in the tea garden. His claim, if any, can best be said to be a commercial interest only. ( 30 ) MOREOVER, the facts of this case relating to the interim arrangement contemplated in the order of 31st August, 1994, is very similar to the facts in the case of New Kenilworth Hotels (P) Ltd. (supra) referred to by Mr. Sircar. The Supreme Court was of the view that at best a licence had been created on account of the interim arrangement pending sale of the property, which did not make the licence, a necessary party in the writ proceedings, since the licensee had no other right other than the right to be in possession as licensee pending the settlement of the dispute forming the subject matter of the pending writ proceedings. ( 31 ) SIMILAR is the case in the instant writ proceedings where Shri Bhadra at best acquired a right to run the tea garden in terms of the aforesaid order of 31st August. 1994. ( 32 ) THIS brings us to the next question regarding the right of the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri, to pass the said order despite the subsisting order of status quo passed on 3rd September, 1981. ( 33 ) IT is well established that if an order is made in derogation of an order of injunction passed by the Court, such order will be deemed to be a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. The said proposition of law has been reiterated in clear and unambiguous terms in the case of Satya Brata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku (supra), referred to and relied upon by Mr. Sircar. The said proposition of law has been reiterated in clear and unambiguous terms in the case of Satya Brata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku (supra), referred to and relied upon by Mr. Sircar. Since, the aforesaid order of 31st August, 1994, has the effect of disturbing the status quo as regards the possession of the tea garden which was directed to be maintained by the said order of 3rd September, 1981, the parties cannot be allowed to rely thereupon. No right of any kind whatsoever was, therefore, created in Shri Bhadra's favour in the tea garden to question by virtue of the said order. ( 34 ) SINCE Mr. Das's submissions are dependent entirely upon the said order of 31st August, 1994, such submissions must fail having regard to the view taken by me hereinbefore. The decisions cited by Mr. Das do not have application to the facts of this case, since the applicant has not been able to establish any legal right over the tea garden, which is likely to be affected in any way as a result of the final outcome of the writ petition. ( 35 ) THE applicant, in my view, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, whose presence is required for a proper and effective disposal of the issues involved in the writ petition. Whether the applicant has a right to have his application for lease considered by the authorities will be dependent on the outcome of the writ petition and will not have a hearing on the decision itself. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLY, the applicant's prayer to be added as a party to the writ proceedings or to be allowed to intervene therein is rejected and the application flied by the applicant for such relief and other connected reliefs are, accordingly, dismissed also. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let the application for vacating the interim order filed on behalf of the State Government be listed for hearing on Wednesday week (6-9-95 ). Application rejected.