JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 tender notice inviting tenders for conducting an ice cream parlour in the building in Vijaya Park belonging to the Alappuzha Jilla Tourism Promotion Council. The petitioner, who is the existing contractor for running the same, participated in the tender along with four others. The petitioner was the third highest tenderer. But the highest two tenderers withdrew their offers forfeiting their earnest money deposits. Consequently, the petitioner became the remaining highest tenderer. But the petitioner's tender was not accepted. The 2nd respondent invited the remaining three including the petitioner for a negotiation. All the three were directed to submit fresh quotations. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting for more time to take a decision. But, by Ext.P4 letter dated 17.2.2012, the petitioner was informed that he should vacate the ice cream parlour, since the tender has been awarded to the 4th respondent. It is challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 2nd respondent to confirm the tender in favour of the petitioner and permit him to run the ice cream parlour in building No.43/1373 situates in Vijaya Park, Alappuzha or in the alternative direct the 2nd respondent to invite fresh quotations/tender from the public for contracting the right to run ice cream parlour in building No. 43/1373 situates in Vijaya Park, Alappuzha. (ii). Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Exhibit P4. (iii). Direct the 2nd respondent not to evict petitioner from building No.43/1373 situates in Vijaya Park, Alappuzha where petitioner is running ice cream parlour. According to the petitioner, he being the remaining highest tenderer, the 2nd respondent was bound to accept his tender unless there are valid reasons for not accepting the same. The petitioner submits that there are no valid reasons for not accepting the petitioner's tender, which was the highest after the other two withdrew from the tender process. He would further submit having received his letter seeking time to take a decision regarding submission of fresh quotation, natural justice demanded that he should have been given a reply before accepting the revised quotation of the 4th respondent. 2. He would further submit having received his letter seeking time to take a decision regarding submission of fresh quotation, natural justice demanded that he should have been given a reply before accepting the revised quotation of the 4th respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein the stand now taken is that subsequent to the opening of the tenders, the 7th respondent herein submitted Ext. R2(b) letter offering Rs. 1500/- more than the highest tender received. In the above circumstances, all the three were invited for a negotiation on 17.2.2012 and in the meeting, all the three were directed to submit sealed quotations. According to the 2nd respondent, all the three submitted sealed quotations. In the same, the 4th respondent quoted Rs. 18 lakhs, which was the highest. In the cover submitted by the petitioner, Ext. R2(c) letter was found, where the petitioner requested for time till 22.2.2012 for quoting the amount. Since the earlier contact with the petitioner was ending on 16.2.2012, it was decided to accept the highest tender of the 4th respondent and the contract was awarded to the 4th respondent, is the contention raised. According to them, the entire process was very transparent and there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory insofar as all the three were given equal opportunity to submit higher tenders. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the contract has been awarded to the 4th respondent and an agreement has already been executed. He would contend that there is a concluded contract, which cannot now be set aside. He also supports the contention of the 2nd respondent. He would further state that the petitioner is part of a caucus, who would in collusion with others submit different tenders and the highest tenderer would withdraw after the tenders are opened leaving the field to the petitioner for a much lower amount. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent has decided to conduct negotiations with the remaining tenderers, which has been done in the best interest of the institution, is the contention raised. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. It is not disputed before me that as per the original tender received, the petitioner was the third highest quoting Rs. 13,07,777/-. At that time, the 4th respondent quoted only Rs. 12,11,786/-. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. It is not disputed before me that as per the original tender received, the petitioner was the third highest quoting Rs. 13,07,777/-. At that time, the 4th respondent quoted only Rs. 12,11,786/-. I must straightaway discard the contention of the 4th respondent that there was a caucus by the petitioner and the other higher tenderers because the 4th respondent himself quoted only Rs.12,11,786/-. It was less than the petitioner's tender. It is also not disputed before me that the petitioner himself had, for the previous year, got the tender for Rs. 10,20,000/-. Of course, the 2nd respondent would have been justified in discarding all the tenders received for valid reasons and even perhaps conducting negotiations with the tenderers. But that must be for valid reasons recorded in writing. To find out whether there are such reasons recorded in writing, I directed the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent to produce the files relating to the tender. The only reason found in the files for deciding not to accept the tender of the petitioner, which was the highest at that time, is that the 2nd respondent received Ext.R2(b) letter from the 7th respondent offering Rs. 1500/- more than the highest tender received, which was Rs.16,22,220/-. In fact, the files disclose that at one point of time, the 2nd respondent even contemplated accepting the offer of the 7th respondent. If that was done, that would have been against accepted norms for conducting tender proceedings. But sanity prevailed on them and they decided to conduct negotiations with the remaining tenderers. But, for deciding not to accept the tender of the petitioner, which was the highest at that point of time, no reason whatsoever is forthcoming from the files. It is not as if the petitioner's offer was ridiculously low. Admittedly, for the previous year, the petitioner himself was given the contract for Rs. 10,20,000/- and the petitioner offered almost 3 lakhs more. Therefore, the 2nd respondent could have decided to reject all the tenders and to go for negotiations only for valid reasons recorded in writing. That valid reason is conspicuously absent in the files. Therefore, the procedure followed by the 2nd respondent is clearly arbitrary. 10,20,000/- and the petitioner offered almost 3 lakhs more. Therefore, the 2nd respondent could have decided to reject all the tenders and to go for negotiations only for valid reasons recorded in writing. That valid reason is conspicuously absent in the files. Therefore, the procedure followed by the 2nd respondent is clearly arbitrary. The 4th respondent's contention that now that the concluded contract has been entered into between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent, the same cannot be interfered with, does not appeal to me. That contract is an invalid contract insofar as further procedure followed by the 2nd respondent after receipt of the original tenders was clearly without following the law applicable. For rejecting a tender there should be a valid reason, which is not forthcoming anywhere in the files. The procedure of taking further proceedings on the basis of a letter offering higher amount after the rates quoted by others were made known militates against a fair procedure, which should inform tender proceedings by a governmental authority. It is not as if the petitioner had kept silent. The petitioner had requested for time to put forward his quotation, which was not even considered and no reply was given. Here it must be noted that the whole process was initiated and completed on 17.2.2012 itself. The minimum the 2nd respondent should have done is to intimate the petitioner that no further time can be granted. Here it must be noted that the petitioner disputes that the letter was given in the sealed cover. According to him, he gave the letter at the time of negotiations itself, when the three were asked to submit fresh quotations. Therefore, I am not inclined to countenance the procedure followed by the 2nd respondent in the tender process. Accordingly, the award of tender to the 4th respondent is liable to be quashed. 6. That does not necessarily mean that the petitioner should be given the contract. What the Court must look into is the best interest of the 2nd respondent, which is a Government institution. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has now quoted Rs.18 lakhs. In fact the petitioner has now offered Rs. 20 lakhs. I enquired with the counsel for the 4th respondent as to whether the 4th respondent is willing to undergo fresh negotiations. But the counsel for the 4th respondent flatly refused that offer. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has now quoted Rs.18 lakhs. In fact the petitioner has now offered Rs. 20 lakhs. I enquired with the counsel for the 4th respondent as to whether the 4th respondent is willing to undergo fresh negotiations. But the counsel for the 4th respondent flatly refused that offer. In the above circumstances, I have no option but to direct the 2nd respondent to retender the contract. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the award of the contract to the 4th respondent is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to retender the contract.