JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 29th June, 2012 passed in Company Petition No. 5 of 1999, wherein it has been observed that the appellant, namely, M/s. Anjaney Ferro Alloys Limited has no locus standi before BIFR and AAIFR and directed the BIFR to proceed to comply the order of the Honble Supreme Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was bidder in auction for the properties of the Company in liquidation i.e., M/s. Raj Hans Steel Ltd. in the sale proceedings commenced due to the winding up order dated 2nd September, 2003. The appellant was a party before this Court in the Company petition at various stages as well as it was impleaded as party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27210 of 2010 which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4th October. 2010. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties remitted the matter to the BIFR and BIFR was directed to decide as to whether the creditors of the Company have been paid off and if so whether the rehabilitation package proposed by the Company is viable. The BIFR was further directed to consider and decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible and preferably within three months from the date of the order i.e., from 4th October, 2010. 4. Before the BIFR, the present appellant claimed that he has a right to hearing, upon which the BIFR held that the present appellant can be heard. Against the order of the BIFR the Director of the Company in liquidation preferred appeal before the AAIFR which was pending consideration. Meanwhile BIFR .also passed some orders, which were challenged by the present appellant before the AAIFR. In both the appeals, hearing was completed and judgment was kept reserved. However, before judgment could have been pronounced. one of the Member demitted the Office and in Company Petition No.5 of 1999, on 29th June, 2012 the matter was taken up by the Company Judge for other purpose and without challenge to any order of BIFR, it was pointed out to the Company Judge that the present appellant-M/s. Anjaney Ferro Alloys Limited is delaying the proceedings before the BIFR, upon which the learned single Judge made the above observation that the present appellant has no locus standi before the BIFR and AAIFR. Before this order dated 29th June, 201.2 passed by the learned Company Judge admittedly the BIFR already held that the present appellant can be heard by the BIFR and against that order Ex-Director of the Company in liquidation preferred appeal, which is pending before the AAIFR. 5. Being aggrieved against the order dated 29th June, 2012 wherein it has been observed that the appellant has no locus standi before BIFR and AAIFR, the present appellant preferred the appeal and it was argued before us in appeal on 20th July, 2012 that the appeal challenging the appellant's locus standi is already heard by the AAIFR and order has already been reserved and during this period, the learned single Judge has observed that the appellant has no locus standi. Therefore, by this order virtually the appeal of the appellant pending before the AAIFR has been made in-fructuous without there being any challenge to the order passed by the BIFR, wherein the BIFR held that the appellant has locus standi. 6. Learned counsel for the Company in liquidation pointed out that after demit of the Office of the one of the Member, now the• Judicial Member as a Chairman has joined and. therefore, AAIFR has been reconstituted and the case has been fixed for final hearing and next date is 4th September, 2012. It is also submitted that this Court in the Company Petition itself in one of the order dated 15.4.2011 has already held that the appellant who was mere bidder has got no locus standi before the BIFR and against the order appeal was preferred before• the Division Bench of this Court in Company Appeal No. 1 of 2011, which was too dismissed vide order dated 10th January, 2012. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, that appeal was dismissed as the same was not pressed because, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order was modified by the Company Judge on 6th January, 2012. 7. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Company Judge was seized with the matter in Company Petition No.5 of 1999, but admittedly before the Company Judge, nobody challenged the order passed by the BIFR and, in fact, the Company in liquidation through Ex-Director of the Company challenged the order of the BIFR impleading the appellant as party. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Company Judge was seized with the matter in Company Petition No.5 of 1999, but admittedly before the Company Judge, nobody challenged the order passed by the BIFR and, in fact, the Company in liquidation through Ex-Director of the Company challenged the order of the BIFR impleading the appellant as party. The AAIFR was seized with the matter and, therefore at that juncture there was no occasion for usurping the power of AAIFR by the Company Judge in a proceeding which was not relevant for the purpose of considering the legality and validity of the order passed by the BIFR. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the issue is no more res integra as well as factually the appellant cannot and is not in a position to show how appellant is relevant at all for the purpose of deciding any of the matter by BIFR. It is also submitted that in the proceeding before the BIFR only concerned parties are the Company whose matter is under consideration and the creditors arid its share holders only and none else. It is also submitted that because of the continuous interference by the appellant only, the matter has not been decided by the BIFR even when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the BIFR to decide the matter within the stipulated period of three months only. 9. Since the matter was pending before the AAIFR for hearing on the appeal of the Ex-Director of the Company in liquidation and. therefore, at this stage there was no occasion for the learned Company Judge to make any observation as to influence the decision of the AAIFR, which could have been given only after hearing both parties in a regular appeal. Admittedly, the order of the BIFR impleading the appellant was not under challenge before the Company Judge and therefore there was no reason. Furthermore at the most direction could have been given to AAIFR to decide the appeal of the respondent challenging the order of impleading the appellant as party. 10. In view of the above reason, the AAIFR which is now functional and has already fixed the date as 4th September, 2012. is directed to hear and decide the appeal preferred by the' respondent uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 29th June, 2012. 10. In view of the above reason, the AAIFR which is now functional and has already fixed the date as 4th September, 2012. is directed to hear and decide the appeal preferred by the' respondent uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 29th June, 2012. but after taking due care of the orders passed by this Court at various stages as well 'as after taking into consideration the reason for impleading the parties in the proceeding before the BIFR. The AAIFR is directed to decide all the appeals pending before it expeditiously and preferably by the end of the month of September i.e., by 30th September, 2012. 11. This appeal is allowed, accordingly to the extent mentioned above only. It is made clear that none of the observation may be treated to be against any of the parties. Appeal allowed.