JUDGMENT : M. KATJU, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to lift the defective machine lying in the petitioner's premises and to refund the margin money, two instalments paid by the petitioner and collateral security papers of the petitioner and to reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. Twenty six lacs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is a partnership firm having seven partners and is doing the business of medical diagnostics services as stated in para 2 of the petition. One of the partners is having M.D. Radiology Degree and is specialised in CAT scan. The firm decided to install a Cat Scan Machine in the firm and it is alleged that this will benefit the citizens of Agra. 4. The petitioner applied for financing/purchasing the machine before the National Small Scale Industries Corporation respondent No. 2 which provides such assistance to small entrepreneurs in collaboration with Small Scale Industries and thereafter the petitioner completed all formalities and deposited Rs. 7.5 lacs as the margin money and submitted collateral security to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs as stated in para 5 of the petition. A requirement of the Corporation was that the petitioner should have requisite premises with full infrastructures where the machine was to be installed and as such while making the application for purchase and finance of the machine in May, 1999 the petitioner got a rented premises at monthly rent of Rs. 20,000 per month from May, 1999. The petitioner installed Air Conditioner. It is alleged in para 8 of the petition that since May, 1999 the petitioner is paying monthly rent of Rs. 20,000 beside 7,500 and he has appointed two persons to look after the premises and is paying Rs. 2,500 per month to them. 5. In pursuance to the application of May, 1999, the Corporation issued supply order of the machine required by the petitioner before M/s. S. S. Medical System U. K. Liverpool which have its Indian Agent at Lalbagh, Lucknow. True copy of the supply order dated 10.9.1999 is Annexure1. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that the total cost of the machine was Rs. 25 lacs and the payment to the supplier was to be made by the Corporation. True copy of the supply order dated 10.9.1999 is Annexure1. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that the total cost of the machine was Rs. 25 lacs and the payment to the supplier was to be made by the Corporation. The petitioner was to be given the machine by the Corporation on hire purchase basis on equal instalments, after adding reasonable agreed interest. The petitioner has already deposited Rs. 7.5 lacs towards margin money and Rs. 25 lacs by way of collateral security and the rest was to be paid in quarterly instalments, after supply of the machine and after its installation at the petitioner's premises in proper working condition. 6. In para 12 it is stated that the machine was supplied by supplier to the petitioner but it was never installed in working condition. The petitioner made correspondence with the Corporation, and the Engineer from supplier visited the premises but found that the machine was defective and cannot be installed. True copy of the inspection report is Annexure2. Thereafter a meeting was held in which the petitioner, the Corporation, and the supplier participated and it is alleged that the supplier agreed to change the machine. A true copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 10.10.2000 is Annexure3. However, thereafter no action was taken by the supplier although several letters were written by the petitioner to the Corporation stating that the contract and their hire purchase agreement may be revoked as the machine was not installed in proper working condition. True copy of the letter dated 20.12.2000 is Annexure-4. It is alleged in para 15 that even though one year has expired no action has been taken either to replace the machine or to refund the money to the petitioner. The petitioner is paying monthly rent of Rs. 20,000, electricity bill of Rs. 7,500 and staff expenses of Rs. 2,500 per month although the defective machine is still lying at the petitioner's premises. In para 16 it is stated that the supplier has received full payment from the Corporation, and the Corporation has got its money paid from the Global Insurance Company, Mumbai, as he has claimed transit damage and has got the money of the machine paid by the Insurance Company. The petitioner has suffered till date loss of about Rs. 26 lacs and further he is still suffering monthly loss of more than Rs. The petitioner has suffered till date loss of about Rs. 26 lacs and further he is still suffering monthly loss of more than Rs. 30,000 per month. He has made several representations but to no avail. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. A preliminary objection has been taken that a Writ Petition No. 3561 (MB) of 2001 has been filed by M/s. S. S. Medical Systems. That writ petition is still pending before Lucknow Bench of this Court and an order has been passed therein on 27.7.2001 which has been quoted in para 1 of the counter-affidavit. In the present writ petition even M/s. S. S. Medical Systems has not been impleaded as a respondent and hence the petition is not maintainable. In para 13 it is stated that the respondent Corporation is not responsible for any damages, delay, etc. The claim of the petitioner is contrary to the contract/agreement. The Corporation was established only to promote and protect the small scale units and it made correspondence with the supplier for replacement of the defective machine given to the petitioner. In para 14 it is stated that the respondent is trying to put all kind of pressure on the supplier for the replacement of the said machinery. However, Writ Petition No. 3561 (MB) of 2001 has been filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and is being seriously contested by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In para 15 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Corporation does not take responsibility with regard to specifications, quality and performance of the machine which are in accordance with the quotations accepted by the hirer. In the declaration attached to the application for supply of machines, it was stated : "I/we agree that this Corporation does not take any responsibility as regards specification, quality and performance of the machines which are in accordance with quotations accepted by me/us." 8. In para 16, it is stated that the hirer selected the machine and the supplier, and the Corporation placed the order to the supplier, chosen by the hirer. The Corporation has expressly disclaimed any reliance upon any statement or representation made by the supplier. The Corporation never made any warranty express or implied of any matter whatsoever including the condition of the machinery. The Corporation has expressly disclaimed any reliance upon any statement or representation made by the supplier. The Corporation never made any warranty express or implied of any matter whatsoever including the condition of the machinery. It is not necessary for us to go into other averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, we are of the opinion that since Writ Petition No. 3561 (MB) of 2001 is pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, it would be appropriate that the petitioner in the present writ petition approaches the Lucknow Bench for suitable redress in that very writ petition. The petitioner in the present writ petition has not even impleaded the supplier as a party and hence a necessary party is not before us. This writ petition is not, therefore, maintainable. Moreover, the Corporation has denied its liability, and the matter is pending before the Lucknow Bench. 9. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach Lucknow Bench for suitable relief in that writ petition.