The completeness of a transaction, the issuance of a sale letter, and the applicability of previous court decisions in similar matters were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the writ petitions involve common questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. WP (C) No. 8617 of 2009 has been filed by M/s. Blaze Electronics Private Limited praying for a direction to the opposite parties to allow it for settlement of its loan dues under "modified OTS-2007 Scheme" (in short, "the OTS Scheme") and hand over possession of the industrial assets to it. WP (C) No. 1051 of 2010 has been filed by M/s. Weighmech praying for a direction to opposite party No. 3 to issue sale letter, accept the balance 75% of the bid amount and hand over the possession of the property in its favour.

( 2 ) IN WP (C) No. 8617 of 2009, this Court issued notice to the opposite parties on 9-6-2009 and directed that till the next listing the sale of industrial assets shall not be finalized by the opposite parties. Thereafter M/s. Weighmech represented by its proprietor Shiba Prasad Dash filed an application for intervention. The intervenor is the auction purchaser of the petitioner's unit in pursuance of the sale notice dated 1-3-2006. This Court on 4-11-2009 allowed the intervention application and the intervenor was impleaded as opposite party No. 6 in the said writ petition. On the said date, this Court further directed that the amount so deposited by the petitioner be kept in a fix deposit in any nationalized bank. The intervenor also filed an application for vacation of stay along with the counter-affidavit. Thereafter the matter was listed for hearing. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 1411 of 2010 for withdrawal of the writ petition as its prayer for settlement of dues under OTS Scheme was accepted by the Orissa Financial Corporation Limited (in short, "osfc") and communicated to it by letter dated 24-12-2009. In the said letter dated 24-12-2009 of the OSFC, one of the clauses is that the settlement order is subject to any order from the Hon'ble High Court and No Dues Certificate (NDC) shall only be issued in favour of the petitioner after liquidation of all the loan (s) towards the loan dues of M/s. Blaze Electronics (P) Ltd. as well as M/s. Blaze Metal and Alloys (P) Ltd. to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the submission of the withdrawal order and or disposal of the case filed against the Corporation in respect of industrial concern of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner has already complied with the terms of payment of dues towards loan account.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the intervenor-opposite party No. 6 objected to the withdrawal of WP (C) No. 8617 of 2009 on the ground, that it has filed WP (C) No. 1051 of 2010 for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the OSFC to issue sale letter in favour of it within the stipulated period, accept the balance 75% of the bid amount and hand over the possession of the property which is the subject-matter of the auction in pursuance of the sale notice dated 1-3-2006 in respect of Blaze Electronics (P) Ltd. as the intervenor was the highest bidder and had also deposited Rs. 11,96,600/- on 11th March, 2006 which was 25% of the bid value including EMD which is lying deposit on the OSFC. As per the terms of the sale notice, the OSFC was required to issue sale letter to the petitioner and on receipt of the sale notice, it had to pay the balance amount of 75% within 90 days from the date of issuance of sale letter. But till date the OSFC did not issue sale letter though it was ready and willing to pay the balance amount. It being the bona fide purchaser and its monies having been blocked for years together, WP (C) 8617 of 2009 should not be allowed to be withdrawn as the petitioner of WP (C) 8617 of 2009 in connivance with the OSFC wanted to deprive the present opposite party No. 6 (petitioner in WP (C) No. 1051 of 2010) from taking over possession of the Unit. It was further stated by the said opposite party No. 6 that the loanee never applied in terms