Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—This case has come up on an application for impleadment filed by Promuk Hoffman International Ltd. ('the applicant', for short).

2. According to the applicant, it was one of the participants/ bidders in the tender floated by the State of Rajasthan for affixing of High Security Registration Plates on all types of vehicles in the State. Since the said tender was not granted to the applicant, but was granted to the petitioner, Shimnit Utsch India Ltd., the applicant had filed a writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2006 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the applicant had challenged the illegal grant of contract to the petitioner. However, vide judgment dated 12-8-2008, a Single Bench of this Court had dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, the applicant has filed a Special Appeal, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1387/2008, which is presently pending before a learned Division Bench of this Court.

3. On the other hand, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-3-2009, whereby the office of Transport Commissioner, has suspended the agreement to supply and provide services for affixing high security registration plates on motor vehicles.

4. Mr. Paras Kuhad, the learned counsel for the applicant, has frankly conceded that although the applicant is not a necessary party to the writ petition, but nonetheless it is a proper party. According to the learned counsel initially, it was the applicant, who had questioned the grant of contract by the Government to the petitioner, in the writ petition filed by the applicant. In the said writ petition, the applicant had exposed the lapses committed by the present petitioner, as well as the omissions and illegal action committed by the State. Since, it is the applicant, who blew the whistle and questioned the grant of contract in favour of the petitioner, it is the applicant who is in a position to shed light on the entire controversy enveloping the grant/ suspension of the contract. Since the applicant would be able to assist the court in its search for truth, the applicant should be heard by this Court.

Secondly, the purpose of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is to enable the court to seek assistance of such a person who can enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the issues involved in a case. Since, the applicant is in a position to shed light on the controversy involved, the Court should permit the applicant to assist the Court while adjudicating the writ petition.

Thirdly, in another application moved by one Chandra Bihari Sharma, who had filed criminal complaint before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur against the present petitioner, vide order dated 30-3-2009, this Court had permitted Chandra Bihari Sharma to appear as an intervenor. According to learned counsel, the case of the applicant is on a better footing than the case of Chandra Bihari Sharma. Therefore, the applicant is a proper party which should be arrayed as party respondent.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Mehta, Senior Advocate and the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently opposed the application of the applicant. According to learned counsel the dispute is strictly between the petitioner and the State Government. The applicant is a stranger to the said dispute. Secondly, since no relief is being asked by the petitioner against the applicant, the applicant is not a necessary party to the present writ petition. Thirdly, while relying on the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyaperumal ((2005)6 SCC 733), learned counsel has argued that as the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore it should not be arrayed as a party respondent.

Fourthly, in case the applicant is arrayed as party respondent the scope of controversy would unnecessarily be enlarged. For, the applicant would try to revive all the contentions that it had raised before the Single Bench, and which have been dismissed by the learned Single Bench.