Order Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Tiwary for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. Navneeti Pd. Singh for the intervenors (i) M/s S. R. Industries and (ii) M/s Durga Bhandar. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 5, though a Vakalatnama on its behalf is on the record. 2. The controversy in this application relates to the sale of sweated/wet/substandard sugar by the Food Corporation of India on the basis of a tender notice dated 10.5.96 (copy at annexure 1) in response to which the petitioner had made its bid for 17 lots of sugar. The petitioner came to this Court making allegations of serious irregularities committed by the Corporation in the grant of the contract for sale to the various parties in respect of the disputed 17 lots. By an interim order passed in this case on 8.10.1996, this Court directed the Corporation to hold one further negotiation with the bidding parties in respect of 14 lots before finalising the contract. The position as it emerges after the re-negotiation, as directed by this Court, has been brought on the record in a supplementary counter affidavit flied on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Following the re-negotiation the petitioner has been given one lot bearing no. 1/3/29. This satisfies the petitioner in so far as the present controversy is concerned. 3. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, however, urged the Court to take note that the procedure adopted by the Corporation for the sale of sugar does not have the transparency one should expect in the dealings of a Public Sector Corporation and leaves scope for many irregularities. According to the learned counsel, the procedure followed by the Corporation instead of preventing mal practices encourages them. I will take note of these submissions later in this order. 4. Mr. Navneeti Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the two intervenors submitted that so far as the intervenor M/s. Durga Bhandar is concerned, it has not been adversely affected by the re-negotiation held pursuant to this Court's order dated 8.10.1996 and in that view he would not press the intervention application on behalf of M/s. Durga Bhandar. 5. In so far as the intervenor M/s. S. R. Industries is concerned, it has been adversely affected by the re-negotiation held pursuant to the order dated 8.10.96 and Mr. Navneeti Pd. 5. In so far as the intervenor M/s. S. R. Industries is concerned, it has been adversely affected by the re-negotiation held pursuant to the order dated 8.10.96 and Mr. Navneeti Pd. Singh accordingly pressed the application on its behalf. 6. According to the learned counsel, in the initial negotiation M/s S. R. Industries was allotted lots no. 2/1/A and 3/1. As a result of the re-negotiation both the lots have gone away from M/s S. R. Industries; lot no. 2/1/A has gone to Ravi Industries (not a party in this case) and lot no. 3/1 has gone in favour of respondent no. 5 Mr. Singh, submitted that the intervenor M/s S. R. Industries was not even impleaded as a party respondent in the present writ petition and no relief was claimed against it and therefore any change in the position adverse to the intervenor on the basis of any order passed in this writ petition was wholly unwarranted, learned counsel further submitted that the re-negotiation following this Court's order was held on 30.10.1995 and on that date the intervenor had been unable to attend the re-negotiation because of the road blockade put up at Begusarai due to which the intervenor coming from Khagaria had not been able to reach Patna in time for the re-negotiation meeting. At that time the telephone lines were also affected by the recently withdrawn telecom strike and in that situation the intervenor could not even intimate the officials in the Corporation at Patna about his predicament and about his inability to come to Patna. Learned counsel further submitted that he had no grievance in so far as one of the lots initially allotted to him had gone to M/s Ravi Enterprises inasmuch as this party, according to the learned counsel, was a genuine party. However, in respect of the lot going to respondent no. 5, learned counsel submitted that the action of the Corporation in allotting lot no. 3/1 to respondent no. 5 was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. 7. At this stage, I would also take note of the irregularities in the allotment procedure pointed out by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Both Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh and Mr. Navneeti Pd. 5, learned counsel submitted that the action of the Corporation in allotting lot no. 3/1 to respondent no. 5 was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. 7. At this stage, I would also take note of the irregularities in the allotment procedure pointed out by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Both Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh and Mr. Navneeti Pd. Singh submitted that according to the tender notice a tenderer could qualify for consideration only in case he deposited earnest money amounting to 5% of the total consideration money offered by him. It is stated both by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the intervenor that respondent no. 5 had not deposited the sum amounting to 5% of the offer made by it and, hence, in terms of the tender notice it was not even qualified for consideration and yet he was called for negotiations and further negotiations held pursuant to the order of this Court. Besides this, what appears to be the main grievance of the counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor, in so far as allotment procedure is concerned is that in absence of a minimum ceiling indicated in the tender notice, the provision of depositing 5% of the offer made by the tenderer gives rise to a very serious mal practice. Citing the example of this case, it is stated that for the disputed lot no. 3/1, the intervenor M/s S. R. Industries had offered a price of Rs. 801/- per quintal and it made the deposit of the earnest money accordingly. On the other hand, for the same lot, respondent no. 5 had made an offer @ Rs. 11/- per quintal and was, thus, required to make a deposit on that basis as the earnest money. Learned counsel submitted that the tender submitted by respondent no. 5 was, therefore, prima facie bogus and frivolous and not genuine and yet he was treated at par with M/s S.R. Industries and other tenderers who had made genuine offers and respondent no.5 too was called for negotiations at par with them. In the negotiations he made a higher offer and was able to bag the contract even though he had deposited a very low amount as earnest money. 8. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 5 to controvert these statements of fact. In the negotiations he made a higher offer and was able to bag the contract even though he had deposited a very low amount as earnest money. 8. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 5 to controvert these statements of fact. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation is not in a position to furnish any satisfactory answer or explanation to these allegations. 9. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondent no. 5 was not eligible to participate in the negotiations held pursuant to this Court's order dated 8.10.96 and I accordingly direct that lot no. 3/1 will be assigned to the intervenor M/s S.R. Industries provided the intervenor meets the offer made by respondent no. 5 In the renegotiation held on 30.10.1996. It will be open to the intervenor M/s S.R. Industries to make a matching offer in writing to the Corporation within a week from today. In case such offer is made, lot no. 3/1 will be assigned to M/s S.R. Industries and not to respondent no. 5. In case, however, M/s S.R. Industries fails to make a matching offer, the assignment will remain with respondent no. 5. 10. As regards the complaints regarding the allotment procedure. I would refrain from recording any conclusive finding in that regard in this case. I have, however, very briefly taken note of the submission made by the counsel in order to direct the attention of the Corporation's officials to the general complaints. It is hoped and expected that the Corporation will look into the matter and will take steps to improve the allotment procedure, filling up the loop-holes and to make the procedure as transparent as possible. 11. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh states that the amount deposited by the petitioner by way of earnest money is now far in excess of the amount which it was required to deposit and in that view the money deposited by way of earnest money may be adjusted towards the total sale price of sugar and if some amount remains in excess, that should be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law and without any undue delay. The Corporation will consider this. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of.