Judgment :- (1). IDEAL Real Estates Private Limited and another (hereafter the petitioners) responded to an advertisement, published at the instance of West Bengal financial Corporation (hereafter WBFC), inviting offers for sale of assets of M/s. S. P. Cycles Limited (hereafter the said assets ). They offered to purchase the said assets at Rs. 4. 25 crores which was adjudged highest. Due to pending court cases, WBFC was unable to complete sale of the said assets. However, with the dismissal of MAT No. 670 of 2007, since renumbered FMAT No. 1488 of 2007, by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.12.07, WBFC vide its letter dated 24.12.07 informed the petitioners that they were now in a position to transfer the said assets under Section 29 (1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereafter the said Act) on "as is where is and whatsoever there is" basis in their favour subject to conditions mentioned therein. In the writ petition, it has been claimed by the petitioners that they fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter, yet, WBFC acted illegally and wrongly in not accepting the draft towards the balance price when tendered and failed to hand over the draft deed of conveyance. (2). FEELING aggrieved by such action of WBFC, the petitioners prayed for the following relief: a) A writ of and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents and/or each of them, their men or agents or subordinates to i) furnish the draft Deed of Conveyance to the petitioners for sale of the assets of the said M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. ; ii) on approval of the draft Deed to execute and register necessary conveyance in favour of the petitioners and/or its nominees; iii) to hand over possession of the assets of M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. to the petitioners simultaneously with the execution and registration of conveyance for the said assets; iv) to furnish all original deeds and documents with regard to the assets of said M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. to the petitioners; v) to furnish a list of arrear dues with regard to the assets of M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. ; vi) to make settlement with WBIDC about its claim before the execution of conveyance and/or to obtain No Objection Certificate from WBIDC before sale; vii) to accept the balance payment of Rs. 4,12,50,000/-; b) Declaration that the petitioner no. 1 and/or its nominees is entitled to obtain conveyance in respect of the assets of M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. and also entitled for possession of the said assets; c) A writ of and/or writs in the nature of Prohibition restraining the said corporation and/or its agents and subordinates from dealing with and/or disposing of the assets of M/s. S. P. Cycles Ltd. except with the petitioner no. 1. (3). THE writ petition was moved on 11.1.08 before this Court. Learned Counsel for WBFC submitted that there was no refusal on its part to accept the draft prepared by the petitioners. The Court directed learned counsel for WBFC to accept the draft and WBFC was also granted liberty to encash it and to take follow up action for the purpose of handing over of the said assets in favour of the petitioners. (4). BY a subsequent letter dated 14.1.08, WBFC called upon the petitioners to take over possession of the said assets in terms of the letter dated 24.12.07. In view of such letter, the Court passed an order dated 15.1.08 directing WBFC to hand over possession of the said assets in favour of the petitioners as indicated in their letter dated 14.1.08 on 21.1.08 positively with the assistance of the police, if necessary. So far as handing over of conveyance deed is concerned, the petitioners were also granted liberty to approach WBFC. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 27.1.08 for further consideration. (5). AT this stage, the present application (G. A. 284 of 2008) was filed by jagannath Business Services Private Limited and another (hereafter the applicants)for being impleaded in the writ petition as respondents in view of the facts and circumstances narrated therein. (6). THE applicants in the said application contended that they had preferred special Leave Petition against the order dated 19.12. 07 passed by the Division bench dismissing FMA No. 1488 of 2007 and that the petitioners having concealed material facts pertaining to the property in question are seeking orders which would vitally affect their interest in the pending Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, a prayer was made for adding them as respondents in the writ petition. (7). THIS Court has heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, and learned Counsel representing the petitioners and WBFC. Accordingly, a prayer was made for adding them as respondents in the writ petition. (7). THIS Court has heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, and learned Counsel representing the petitioners and WBFC. Reference to certain facts would be relevant for disposal of the said application. (8). ON the basis of the materials on record, it appears that West Bengal industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereafter WBIDC) and WBFC were the mortgagees in respect of the said assets. Pursuant to an order passed by the concerned Civil Court under Section 31 of the said Act, permission to sell the said assets was given to WBIDC. A sale notice was published by WBIDC inviting offers and the applicants responded thereto by submitting their offer to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 69 lakhs. The offer of the applicants was accepted by wbidc and on such acceptance, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs had been paid by the applicants to it. WBIDC made over part possession of the said assets to the applicants but despite requests, possession thereof in its entirety was not handed over. This resulted in the applicants instituting a suit for specific performance wherein the Civil Court restrained WBIDC from selling the said assets until further orders by its order dated 30.7.04. On 21.3.05, WBFC forcibly took possession of the said assets by evicting the applicants therefrom and on a writ petition filed by the applicants [w. P. No. 6567 (W) of 2005], a learned Judge by order dated 30.3.05 put the applicants back in possession of the said assets. An appeal was preferred by WBFC against such order which was disposed of by the division Bench by its order dated 7. 4. 05 reserving the rights and contentions of wbfc to take appropriate proceedings in the matter. WBFC now issued a notice dated 5.7.05. It called upon the applicants, in view of their neglect and/or failure to adhere to the terms of their contract, as to why rights and powers conferred on it under the said Act shall not be exercised for re-entering upon and repossessing the said assets, on 20.7.05. This notice was challenged by the applicants before this Court by filing W.P. 13606 (W) of 2005. Three of the issues framed by the learned Judge while hearing the writ petition are extracted below: "b) Is the contract of sale between the petitioners and WBIDC subsisting? This notice was challenged by the applicants before this Court by filing W.P. 13606 (W) of 2005. Three of the issues framed by the learned Judge while hearing the writ petition are extracted below: "b) Is the contract of sale between the petitioners and WBIDC subsisting? c) Is WBFC entitled to sell the property for recovery of its dues? d) Is the notice dated 5th July, 2005 issued under Section 29 of the state Financial Corporation Act valid and legal?" (9). THE learned Judge answered issues B and C in the affirmative and issue D in the negative. Observation of the learned Judge while answering issue C extracted (supra) is relevant and is quoted below: "In the present case at the highest the petitioner contracted to buy the mortgaged property. The petitioner has been seeking to specifically enforce the contract but is not agreeable nor has offered to redeem the property by paying the dues of WBFC. In the premises the right of wbfc to sell the property for recovery of its dues cannot be questioned. The issue is accordingly answered in the affirmative." (10). THE order dated 28.2.07 was challenged in an intra court appeal being the appeal referred to above. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 19.12.07 dismissed the appeal with the following observations:" 31. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts into consideration we are of the view that the Appellants, by their own conduct cannot be allowed to "speculate" over a property which is so valuable merely because, on the basis of an offer, they deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and then went into an exercise of either intense epistolary activities or into well calculated and/or well planned litigations so as to be in a position to claim rights allegedly flowing under Section 29 of the SFC Act. (11). WE are of the view that the submissions pertaining to Section 29 have been stagemanaged all throughout only to get out of the "withdrawal" clauses of the letters quoted in Paras 8 and 29 above and by which both the Corporations had clearly mentioned that in case of default, the offer of sale shall stand withdrawn. Since the Appellants defaulted, the said offer has obviously been withdrawn and therefore we see nothing wrong if the WBSFC has now exercised its rights under Section 29 of the SFC Act. Since the Appellants defaulted, the said offer has obviously been withdrawn and therefore we see nothing wrong if the WBSFC has now exercised its rights under Section 29 of the SFC Act. ********** we therefore fully endorse the views of the learned Single Judge and we proceed to dismiss the Appeal". (12). THE applicants approached the Apex Court with Special Leave Petition Nos. 616617 of 2008. By an order dated 8.2.08, the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed. (13). IN view of dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the applicants, the findings of this Court that the applicants having defaulted, their offer had obviously been withdrawn; that there was nothing wrong in WBFC exercising its right under Section 29 of the said Act; and that WBFC had the right to sell the said assets, have attained finality and this Court is of the considered view that the applicants can have no say in respect of sale notice issued by WBFC to which the petitioners responded, was adjudged the highest bidder and, thereafter, their offer having been accepted, necessary action has been directed to be taken. Whatever claims the applicants could legitimately lay in respect of the said assets stand negated by reason of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above. The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the petition and it is held that their presence is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition. (14). THE application for addition of party fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs. List the writ petition as "for Orders" on 7.3.2008.