JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge fated 4.7.2003 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that since it is purely a contractual matter and discretion lies with the authorities to whom they want to allot the tender, no interference is called for in the matter under writ jurisdiction. 2. The appellant is a contractor in the name and style of proprietorship concern M/s. Vinod Kumar Goyal. On 24.7.2002. a tender notice was issued by the respondent Jaipur Development Authority for the purpose of erection and planting of sewerage lines in the Murlipura Area, Jaipur. The appellant participated in the said tender and submitted its offer. In that tender, the appellant offered 21.68% below the P.W.D. rates and one M/s. Prasram offered lowest rate at 27.82% below the P.W.D. rates. The tender was awarded to M/s. Prasram, but he left the work and thereafter re-tender process was started. In the re-tender process, the petitioner-appellant has offered the rates as under:- NTT No. G Schedule rate Quoted Pre-assessed rate 79-7(1) Rs. 174.00 lacs 16.68% below G SCH 15.57% below G SCH. 79-7(2) Rs. 107.00 lees 13.68% below G SCH 15.57% below G SCH. 80-6(1) Rs. 169.00 lads 11.68% below G SCH 15.57% below G SCH. 3. In the second round, though petitioner-appellant has quoted the lowest rate among the persons who have taken part in the tender notice but the tender has not been allotted to the petitioner, instead of negotiations are going on. The petitioner prayed that the order of learned Single Judge dated 4.7.2003 be quashed and writ petition as well as appeal be allowed in terms of the reliefs claimed. 4. Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the petitioner appellant quoted the lowest rate among the persons, who 5 submitted their tenders for the work, the contract should be awarded to him. The negotiations after opening of tender, a source of corruption, they should not go for negotiations with the other persons, who quoted their rates in response to the notice of tender issued by the J.D.A. If they want, they can have the negotiations only with the appellant who quoted the lowest rate. 5. On the other hand, Mr. The negotiations after opening of tender, a source of corruption, they should not go for negotiations with the other persons, who quoted their rates in response to the notice of tender issued by the J.D.A. If they want, they can have the negotiations only with the appellant who quoted the lowest rate. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ is pre-mature, contract is yet to be allotted and negotiations are going on, the petitioner also can take part in the negotiations and finally if he deserves for the contract, the contract can be allotted to him. He submits that in the interest of public and to save the public money, negotiations after the tender open is necessary because by way of negotiations, the tender can be allotted to the persons who quoted the lowest rate and otherwise also he found suitable for the purpose to carry out the contract work. 6. The facts are not in dispute that it is a case of re-tender. Earlier on opening of tender, one M/s. Prasram was found the person who quoted lowest rate i.e. 27.82% below the P.W.D. rates and petitioner himself has offered 21.68% in the first instance when the tender was opened in response of the first tender notice. This time the petitioner has offered only the rates which is about 15% below the P.W.D. rates. A Committee was appointed to re-examine what should be the re-assessed rates. The Committee has decided on 11.7.2003 to reduce the re- assessed rates to 23% below the G Schedule rates. 7. It is true that the J.D.A. authorities should not act arbitrarily and should act in accordance with law and set procedure should be followed but the minimum rate is not only the criteria for allotment of the contract. There are other aspects which cannot be ignored. Even in the case in hand, the contract was allotted to M/s. Prasram in the first instance as he offered 27.82% below the G Schedule rates or pre-assessed rates. Ultimately he ran away. There are other aspects which cannot be ignored. Even in the case in hand, the contract was allotted to M/s. Prasram in the first instance as he offered 27.82% below the G Schedule rates or pre-assessed rates. Ultimately he ran away. Even this petitioner quoted the rate i.e. 21.68% below the pre-assessed rates and now he has quoted rate roughly 16% below the G Schedule rate and in other contract 13.68% below the G Schedule rates and in third case, he quoted 11.68% below the G Schedule rate, therefore, he quoted only in one case below the G Schedule rates. 8. In the negotiations if rates are reduced, the contract should be allotted in normal case to a person who quoted the lowest rate. In the interest of public some negotiations are necessary to save the public money. There is nothing wrong if such negotiations are permitted. The petitioner has equal opportunity to take part in the negotiations and person who offered lowest rate and also satisfy the condition of contract work, the contract should be awarded to him. The other aspects such as quality of goods of services which are offered, the past performance of the tenderer and its market reputation also to be seen before allotting him the contract. 9. As Mr. Chauhan has rightly pointed our that negotiations are still going on and to save the pubic money and in the interest of public, the contract should be awarded to the person, who offered lowest rate with better services and the contract work should be finished within the stipulated so time. Considering these factual aspects, we see no wrong in the order of learned Single Judge specially the dispute relates to the contract work. 10. In the result, we find no force in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******