JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Memorandum of Understanding dated 5.2.2004, entered into between the Department of Fertilizer any Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby and whereunder the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India has agreed to hand over possession of the properties belonging to the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited at its Sindri unit. Petitioners have also sought for a mandamus directing the respondent-Fertilizer Corporation of India to lease out the residential accommodation situated at Sindri unit of the Corporation. 3. The short facts of the cases are that the petitioners were working in the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited as its Sindri unit (in short the F.C.I). Due to financial crunch, winding up process of the unit was initiated and a decision was taken for the transfer of assets of different unit of the F.C.I. under Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 4. Petitioner case is that pursuant to the said decision, the F.C.I. filed an application before B.I.F.R. praying therein to permit them to transfer the infrastuctural assets. Petitioners further case is that without seeking permission of the Company Court as contemplated under Section 537 of the Companies Act the F.C.I. entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Home Affairs. 5. Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly submitted that the MOU entered into between the F.C.I. and the Ministry of Home Affairs in complete violation of Section 20(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. According to learned counsel while selling out the assets of the companies, the interest of the workmen is also to be considered. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision to sell the assets of the unit without constituting the Assets Sale Committee as per the order of the B.I.F.R. is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the B.I.F.R. has already ordered for the winding up of the respondent-company and the application to that effect was filed under Section 20(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 seeking the approval of the B.I.F.R. to hand over some of the infrastructural assets to C.R.P.F. authorities in pursuance of Memorandum of Understanding. 7. 7. It has not been disputed ,by the petitioners that they were the employees of the respondent-Company, In pursuance of the decision of the Government of India a Voluntary Separation Scheme was introduced in 2002 whereunder the petitioners opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S.S.) and the workers not availing the said scheme were offered compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. All the petitioners have retired under the aforesaid scheme and they were paid all benefits of the scheme. However, against the order of vacation of quarters the Employees Union filed C.W.P. No. 7914 of 2002 before the Delhi High Court praying for allowing them to keep the quarters till the end of the academic session ending 31.5.2003. The Delhi High Court passed the following orders which appear from Annexures 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit : "(a) It is made clear that the members of the petitioner-Union have given an undertaking (which is accepted) that they will pay double the normal rent for use and occupation of accommodation available with them for a period of two months i.e. for the months of January and February, 2003. They will pay four times the normal rent for the next two months i.e. March and April, 2003 and they will pay size times the normal rent for the month of May, 2003. In any case, the undertaking is that the members of the petitioner-Unions will vacate the premises occupied by them on or before 31.5.2003. This clarification shall form part of the order dated 16th December, 2002. The second clarification is with regard to the electricity and water to be made available to the members of the petitioner-Unions from 1st January, 2003 to 31st May, 2003. They members of the petitioner-Unions will be liable to pay the electricity and water charges, as already undertaken by them for this period. In is for the petitioners, the respondents and civic/municipal authorities to sit down and sort out the problem and that they should endeavour to do so before 15th January, 2003." 8. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by and between the Department of Fertilizer and Ministry of Home Affairs. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by and between the Department of Fertilizer and Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioners were allowed to occupy the company quarters even after receiving all compensation under the V.S.S. on their undertaking to vacate the same within the specified time. It is, therefore, clear that in order to continue occupation, of the said quarters the instant writ petitions have been filed. 9. For the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in there writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.