Judgment 1. The dispute in this case relates to the appointment of transportation and handling agent, for the period 2002-03, for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for the district of Darbhanga. A tender notice in this regard was issued in some daily news papers on 19.1.2002. The petitioner and respondent no. 7 were among those who filed their tender in response to the notice. The Dist. Level Selection Committee prepared a tabular statement of the rates quoted by the tenderers for transportation and handling the bags of foodgrains and on the basis of the lowest rates recommended one Sunil Kumar Singh (at the first place and the present petitioner (at the second place). The tabular statement prepared by the Dist. Level Selection Committee and its recommendation may be seen at Annexures 4 and 3 respectively. 2. The authorities in the State headquarters of the Corporation, however, disregarded the recommendation made by the Committee and the contract of transportation and handling of food-grains was awarded to respondent no. 7 and Sunil Kumar Singh in place of Sunil Kumar Singh and the present petitioner, as recommended by the Dist. Level Selection Committee. Aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation and its action in giving the contract to respondent no. 7, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has come from the Corporation in which it is sought to be explained that the recommendation of the Committee was made by taking the aggregate of the rates quoted by the tenderers separately for transportation and handling the food-grains. It is sought to be explained that the lowest rates ought to have been ascertained on the basis of the rates of transportation alone. In this regard, it is stated that in so far as handling of food-grains was concerned, that is to say, lifting the bags from the railway carriage and staking them on the platform or lifting the bags from the railway carriage and unloading them directly into the trucks, the Government had already fixed minimum wages @ Rs. 1.77 paise per bag of 86 to 100 Kgs. and hence, the rates of handling quoted by the tenderers were unnecessary and for that reason were to be disregarded and the lowest tender was to be determined on the basis of the rates quoted for transportation alone. 1.77 paise per bag of 86 to 100 Kgs. and hence, the rates of handling quoted by the tenderers were unnecessary and for that reason were to be disregarded and the lowest tender was to be determined on the basis of the rates quoted for transportation alone. On the basis of the rates for transportation, the tender submitted by respondent no. 7 was the lowest, followed by the tender submitted by Sunil Kumar Singh and hence, the Corporation took the decision to award the contract to these two persons and not to the petitioner. 4. On hearing Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation and Mr. D. K.Sinha, Senior Advocate representing respondent no. 7, it appears to me that the Corporation acted with material irregularity in taking only the rates quoted by the different tenderers for transportation of the food grains as the basis for its decision. From the tender notice (copy at Annexure 1), it no-where appears that the tenderers were not required to quote separate rates for handling the food grains because the minimum wages for the work of handling had already been fixed by the Government. On the contrary from the tender notice, it appears that the tenderers were required to quote separate rate for transportation and for handling the food-grains. Further from the tender documents, Annexure 2 series, and the form of tender (at Annexure C), it appears that the tenderers were required to quote rates for handling as per quintal. It is true that in the proforma tender for the work of unloading from wagons and staking at the platforms etc. rate of Rs. 1.77 paise per bag of 86 to 100 Kgs. was printed. However, there was no indication that the tenderers might not quote a different rate higher than the minimum wages fixed by the State Government. 5. Apart from this, it is an undeniable fact that all the seven tenderers submitted rates for transportation and handling separately and though the rates quoted by respondent no. 7 was slightly lower so far transportation was concerned, it was much higher for the work of handling the food grains and hence, the aggregate of the two rates was higher than the aggregate rate quoted by Sunil Kumar Singh and the present petitioner. 7 was slightly lower so far transportation was concerned, it was much higher for the work of handling the food grains and hence, the aggregate of the two rates was higher than the aggregate rate quoted by Sunil Kumar Singh and the present petitioner. At the head-quarters of the Corporation, a unilateral decision was taken to disregard the rates quoted for handling the food-grains by ail the tenderers and to determine the lowest tenders on the basis of the rates of transportation alone. This decision would have the consequence that respondent no. 7 would be paid a lower amount for the work of handling the food-grains than the rates quoted by him. In other words, a private negotiation would have taken place between the Corporation and respondent no. 7 on this issue. This chance was not given to the petitioner. 6. Thus looked from any angle, the decision of the Corporation and its action in awarding the contract to respondent no. 7 appears to me to be untenable. The appointment of respondent no. 7 as the transportation and handling agent of the Corporation in the district of Darbhanga for the year, 2002-03 is accordingly set aside. If the Corporation requires a second agent, as it apparently needs, it must appoint the petitioner as recommended by the Dist. Level Selection Committee. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.