Judgment : The Deputy General Manager, Materials Management Department, ONGC at Rajahmundry, 2nd respondent herein issued a notice inviting tenders in the month of September 2010, for hiring the services of effluent tankers for transportation of effluent from production installations for a period of three years and the last date for receipt of the tenders was stipulated as 27.09.2010. Pre-bid conference was scheduled to take place on 30.09.2010 and tenders were to be opened on 02.11.2010. Several tenders were submitted in response to the notice. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 were declared as qualified in the pre-bid conference. Accordingly, the tenders were opened. It emerged that the rates offered by the 3rd respondent, the lowest being Rs.9.99 ps. per unit, whereas the rates offered by respondents 4,5 and 6 are Rs.10.10 ps., Rs.10.15 ps. and Rs.10.15 ps. respectively per unit. The offer made by the petitioner was Rs.10.20 ps. per unit. Not satisfied with the rates offered in the tenders, the 2nd respondent has undertaken negotiations with the 3rd respondent alone. The negotiations yielded the rate of Rs.6.73 ps. per unit. The quantity to be transported in the first year was 854 units and for 2nd and 3rd years, it was 1014 units each. The offer made by the 3rd respondent was only for 250 units for the 1st year and 300 units each for the 2nd and 3rd years. Since huge quantity was left as balance, the 2nd respondent permitted the petitioner and respondents 4,5 and 6 to match their bids to the one offered by the 3rd respondent in the negotiation i.e.,6.73 ps. per unit. Accordingly, all of them submitted their revised offers. The 2nd respondent has accepted the bids of respondents 4,5 and 6, but did not place any order on the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. It is urged that the very procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in inviting the 3rd respondent alone for negotiations is untenable. According to the petitioner, once the tenders were found not acceptable, negotiations ought to have been conducted with all the tenderers. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent ought to have placed orders for the left over quantity equally upon the petitioner and respondents 4,5 and 6. Other contentions are also urged. According to the petitioner, once the tenders were found not acceptable, negotiations ought to have been conducted with all the tenderers. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent ought to have placed orders for the left over quantity equally upon the petitioner and respondents 4,5 and 6. Other contentions are also urged. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 on the one hand and respondents 3,4 and 5 on the other hand. According to them, the tenders were processed strictly in accordance with the Guidelines framed therefor and that no illegality has taken place. It is also pleaded that the petitioner does not have any right to insist that orders must be placed on it. Heard Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.Rekha, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri M.Sri Rama Rao, leanred counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri P.Indra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The tenders were invited for lifting the quantity of 854 units in the first year and 1014 units each for 2nd and 3rd years. The offers made by the petitioner and respondents 3,4 and 6 were for lifting 250 units for the first year and 300 units each for the 2nd and 3rd years. Respondent No.5 however offered to lift 300 units for all the three years. The rates quoted by all the tenderers including the petitioner have already been mentioned above. The 2nd respondent did not find it economical to accept the rates offered in the tenders and it has chosen to undertake negotiations. Whenever the rates quoted in the tenders are not acceptable, two options are open to the concerned authority. The first is to issue fresh tender notice and the second is to undertake negotiations. Once it is decided to undertake negotiations, opportunity must be given to all to participate. In other words, negotiations must be undertaken with all the eligible tenderers. Restricting the negotiation to the last tenderer alone was not proper. The negotiations yielded the rate of Rs.6.73 ps. per unit. Though the very process of undertaking negotiations with the 3rd respondent alone can be found fault with, the placing of orders for the quantity quoted by it cannot be said to be illegal at this stage. Restricting the negotiation to the last tenderer alone was not proper. The negotiations yielded the rate of Rs.6.73 ps. per unit. Though the very process of undertaking negotiations with the 3rd respondent alone can be found fault with, the placing of orders for the quantity quoted by it cannot be said to be illegal at this stage. For all practical purposes, the rate of Rs.6.73 ps. must be treated as the common figure referable to all the tenderers. For the left over quantity of 604 units for the first year and corresponding units for the subsequent years, the 2nd respondent has invited the views of the petitioner for matching their rates. Accordingly the petitioner and respondents 4,5 and 6 have submitted their revised orders. Placing reliance upon a Clause incorporated in the Guidelines, the 2nd respondent has chosen to accept the offers in their entirety made by respondents 4,5 and 6 and since the petitioner was treated as L.5, he did not stand to any chance, as the entire quantity was exhausted upto the 6th respondent itself. Once the rates quoted in the tenders, including the one by L.1 lost their significance, there was no basis for the 2nd respondent in treating the tenderers in the same ranking. All of them ought to have been treated on par and the left over quantity ought to have been distributed equally. The procedure stipulated under the Regulations framed by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that respondents 1 and 2 shall allot equal quantities to respondents 4,5 and 6 and the petitioner from the quantities left after allotment to the 3rd respondent. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.