Judgment : KalyanJyoti Sengupta, CJ. These applications for review have been taken out by the State as well as by the Nizam Sugars Limited respectively after dismissal of the application for special leave to appeal against the self-same judgment. We have noted the dismissal order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as follows: "Permission to file special leave petitions is rejected." 2. Therefore, it appears, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant leave to file special leave petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent - writ petitioner says that the aforesaid order will stand in the way in entertaining the review applications. 4. We are unable to accept the contention as it is settled position of law that refusal to grant leave to file special leave petitions without any reason whatsoever is not a decision on merit and the judgment and order in the writ petition can be challenged in regular course, namely, either by way of review, or by way of regular appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Constitution. The doctrine of merger will not apply here. 5. Now, we have taken up the applications for review. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review applicants that previous Division Bench has heard two matters analogously; one is public interest litigation and another is the writ petition filed by the respondent - writ petitioner. In the public interest litigation it was contended that the decision of selling the property to the writ petitioner in this matter was not in public interest and not in accordance with law. On the other hand, the respondent - writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction basically for execution and registration of conveyance of the sale deed in his favour by the respondent company therein, one of the review petitioners herein. The division Bench found that both the matters should be heard together, and they were heard accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the review applicants says that there has been no decision nor a finding in relation to the writ petition filed by the respondent - writ petitioner. The Division Bench has dealt with extensively the issues involved in the public interest litigation and after deciding that matter, the writ petition of the respondent - writ petitioner was allowed automatically granting relief as prayed for. The Division Bench has dealt with extensively the issues involved in the public interest litigation and after deciding that matter, the writ petition of the respondent - writ petitioner was allowed automatically granting relief as prayed for. According to him, there must be separate and independent findings with regard to the issues involved in the writ petition filed by the respondent - writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent - writ petitioner submits that it will appear from the discussion and the judgment that legality and validity of the contentions raised by his client have been accepted, although not by express words but by necessary implication, all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the public interest litigation were disallowed wholly and the petitioner in the public interest litigation was an Ex-M.L.A. and he has sought direction to the official respondents therein not to effect registration of the land in favour of the respondent - writ petitioner herein. 9. We have seen the entire judgment carefully and we find some substance in what the learned Lawyer for the review applicant says that the previous Division Bench recorded some facts in the judgment in relation to the writ petition filed by the present respondent - writ petitioner, however, no issue was framed nor any decision was taken. It appears that the bona fides and locus of the petitioner in writ petitioner, however, no issue was framed nor any decision was taken. It appears that the bona fides and locus of the petitioner in the public interest litigation were examined in great detail and after having found that the said petitioner has no locus at all and is absolutely frivolous litigation, his writ petition (public interest litigation) was dismissed. It appears that the approach of the Hon'ble Division Bench was that once the public interest litigation is dismissed, then the relief would be granted automatically to the respondent - writ petitioner in this matter. We find that the previous Division Bench has not recorded the contention raised in the counter affidavit of the State, not to speak of deciding the same who is right and who is wrong. Basically, in this matter the respondent – writ petitioner wants a decree for specific performance. We find that the previous Division Bench has not recorded the contention raised in the counter affidavit of the State, not to speak of deciding the same who is right and who is wrong. Basically, in this matter the respondent – writ petitioner wants a decree for specific performance. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Court to find that the respondent - writ petitioner, who is in position of the vendee, is to establish that he has performed the terms and conditions of the agreement and in fact he is ready and willing to perform the remaining part which could not be done because of wrongful prevention. It is to further establish that the vendor has failed and neglected to perform their part of the agreement. These findings have to be reached by the Court and if this is not done, the relief in the nature of specific performance cannot be granted. We notice from the judgment that there is no such finding. 10. Accordingly, we think that there is clearly an error apparent on the face of record. We, therefore, set aside the judgment relating to the present writ petition. The writ petition has to be heard de novo after considering the material on record. 11. Accordingly, this matter will be heard by the appropriate Bench and to appear before appropriate Bench two weeks hence. 12. There will be an interim order of status quo as on today, meaning thereby if the respondent - writ petitioner is enjoying and using the land in question he will continue to enjoy the land and also the usufruct and benefits therefrom, as we find prima facie that there has been complete equity in his favour. We restrain the review applicants (State and the Nizam Sugars Limited) from dealing with and disposing of the property in favour of third party. 13. The review applications are accordingly ordered.