An order passed in derogation of an order of injunction passed by the Court is a nullity.

( 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. 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. Sircar urged that the writ application filed by Shri Radheshyam Agarwala arose out of an order in a proceeding u