As per case facts, petitioners claimed to have invested in Respondent 2. In 2007, Respondent 1 leased a large property to Respondent 2. Petitioners previously alleged violations by Respondent 2, ... who created charges on the property. While earlier judgments directed action against Respondent 2, a Division Bench later ruled that petitioners were not necessary parties. Despite noted violations, Respondent 1 extended time for Respondent 2 to develop the project. Subsequently, Respondent 1 permitted Respondent 2 to sub-lease a portion of the property to Respondent 3. Petitioners challenged this sub-lease and permission. The question arose whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge these actions. Finally, the High Court, adhering to prior judgments, including those from a coordinate Bench and Division Bench, which had negated the petitioners' locus in similar matters, concluded that the petitioners lacked the legal standing to challenge the private transaction between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2. The court rejected the petitions on this sole ground.