ORDER : 1. Heard Shri N. Jotendro, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant, Shri Pungyanbam Shantikumar Singh for impleading himself as respondent No. 4 in the above writ petition. According to the applicant, he is one of the partners of the petitioner’s firm although he has not entered into any formal agreement due to bonafide belief. The applicant and the petitioner have jointly supplied the Bedside Monitors. Later, certain misunderstandings cropped up between the applicant and the petitioner when the petitioner failed to disclose details about the said supply of Bedside Monitors. The appellant spent a sum of Rs. 8,78,220/- towards the supply of the said Bedside Monitors and accordingly, the applicant submitted a representation dated 02-09-2014 to the respondent No. 2 requesting him that his bill be settled while clearing the bills of the petitioner but to no effect. According to the applicant, any order passed by this court in the above writ petition is likely to affect his right and therefore, he is a necessary party therein. 3. The application for impleadment is contested by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s firm is neither a partnership firm nor is the applicant a partner of the said firm and it is a proprietary concern. The applicant is not a party at all in the agreement for the supply of the said Bedside Monitors. 4. The subject matter in issue in the above writ petition relates to the question of releasing/payment of certain amount sanctioned by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner’s firm. According to the petitioner who is a proprietor of the firm namely M/s Manipur Medical Equipment Traders, Imphal, the firm was selected from amongst the various bidders for the supply of multi-parameters patient monitors (Bedside Monitors) vide resolution No. 1 of the Purchase Advisory Board, JNIMS in its meeting held on 24-04-2014 and after having accepted the price quoted by the petitioner’s firm, the respondent No. 2 issued the supply orders for the supply of Bedside Monitors for an amount equal to Rs. 56,63,650/- which the petitioner’s firm did it as per the terms and conditions of supply. 56,63,650/- which the petitioner’s firm did it as per the terms and conditions of supply. After the delivery of the aforesaid Bedside Monitors, the petitioner’s firm, with the help of expert and technicians, imparted training to the Nurses, Doctors and other staff by the respondents. The respondents being fully satisfied with the supply of the said Bedside Monitors, issued as many as 5 (five) sanctioned orders amounting to Rs. 56,63,650/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid sanctioned orders being issued by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 without any valid reason refused to release the said sanctioned amount. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed praying for releasing the said amount sanctioned by the respondent No. 3. 5. The applicant has not placed on record any document to show that he is a partner of the petitioner’s firm nor is there any relationship between the applicant and the petitioner in respect of the said supply. From the perusal of the proceedings of the Purchase Advisory Board as well as the sanctioned orders issued by the respondent No. 3, it is evident that the said supply was made by the petitioner’s firm as per the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the respondent No. 3. The applicant does not seem to be involved in the transaction at all. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant made an attempt to demonstrate the applicant’s involvement in the said supply by relying upon a document namely transaction enquiry (Annexure X/3) but the money transactions referred to therein appear to have taken place prior to the supply orders being made by the respondent No. 3 and if there is really any dispute between the petitioner and the applicant in respect of the supply of the Bedside Monitors, it is open to the applicant to approach any other appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Moreover, assuming that the applicant is a partner of the said firm, there is nothing for him to worry about any order being passed by this court in favour of the petitioner because it will not affect his rights and interest at all and rather, he will get benefits out of it when he claims for his share under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Since the applicant is not prima facie found to be a necessary party in the writ petition, this court is of the view that the instant application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application is dismissed.