JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner before this Court is a registered cooperative society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 2003. In response to a tender notice published by respondent No. 3 – General Manager (Administration), Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar where the quotations were invited for supplying of manpower to Mandi Samiti. The petitioner was one of the bidders in the said tender process. In the bid process, two of the applicants were rejected at the ‘technical stage’ and finally it was the present petitioner and private respondent No. 4 – M/s Men Power Security Agency (Regd.), who have qualified the bid and their ‘financial bid’ was subsequently opened. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was the lowest/L-1. However, the committee of the Mandi Parishad, which was assigned the task for making the approvals, negotiated with the petitioner. The negotiation was being done, as in some of the cases such as in the case of Computer Operator, Driver, Peon and Gunman, the rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than what these persons were getting in the last contract. Admittedly, the last contract was executed in favour of respondent No. 4. In negotiation, the rates quoted by the petitioner were increased in order to meet the rates, these employees were receiving in the last contract and the rates were suitably enhanced and thereafter recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said recommendation of the committee, a contract was executed between the petitioner and the Mandi Samiti on 21.06.2016 and from 01.07.2016 onwards, the petitioner started supplying the manpower, as required under the contract. Meanwhile, the said contract was challenged by respondent no. 4 before this Court in WPMS No. 1789 of 2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, came to the conclusion that there is no anomaly with the execution of the contract and rejected the claim of the petitioner (here in the present writ petition respondent No. 4). The relevant paragraphs of the same reads as under:- “13. So far as the judgment cited by learned Senior Counsel is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioner as in Larsen’s case (Supra) the petitioner’s commercial bid, although lowest, was rejected as the petitioner had not completed the formalities. However, in the case at hand, the respondent no. So far as the judgment cited by learned Senior Counsel is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioner as in Larsen’s case (Supra) the petitioner’s commercial bid, although lowest, was rejected as the petitioner had not completed the formalities. However, in the case at hand, the respondent no. 4, being the lowest bidder, had complied with the terms and conditions of the contract. 14. In Air India’s case (supra) cited by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3, observation has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court that unless there is mala fide the judicial review is not called for. In the present case, no mala fide is pointed out. ” 3. The learned Single Judge, however, further granted liberty to the petitioner (here private respondent No. 4) to make a representation before the Managing Director within a period of one week from the date of the order. The operative portion of the same reads as under:- “15. In view of the above discussion, I dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent no. 2-Managing Director today itself. If such a representation is made, respondent no.2 shall decide the same within a period of one week from today, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.” 4. In pursuance of the said direction, on the representation of the private respondent No. 4, Managing Director of the Mandi Parishad heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the negotiation entered by the committee with the petitioner should not have been done as admittedly the petitioner had submitted the rates which were lower than the rates being given by the Labour Department and he was liable to be aware of the Labour laws and in view thereof no negotiation ought to have been made and cancelled the contract and direction was issued by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.07.2016 to issue fresh advertisement. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No. 3 issued fresh tender advertisement dated 07.08.2016 in Amar Ujala newspaper. It is this order, which is being challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition. 5. This Court stayed the final result of the tender process vide interim order dated 17.08.2016. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No. 3 issued fresh tender advertisement dated 07.08.2016 in Amar Ujala newspaper. It is this order, which is being challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition. 5. This Court stayed the final result of the tender process vide interim order dated 17.08.2016. In the earlier round of litigation Mandi Parishad had taken a stand thereby justifying the negotiations made with the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was L-1 and negotiations were being made purely in order to enhance the rate of certain categories of workmen, which they are getting on the previous year. Yet following the representation of the petitioner the contract has been cancelled. 6. Admittedly, it is nobody’s case that the rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than the one given by the Labour Department. However, reference is being made here by the respondent to the Government Order dated 06.03.2014, which is annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, wherein rates have been fixed for different categories. The rates given in the said Government Order reads as under:- Sl. No. Class of Employee Minimum wage 1 2 3 Per month 1. Unskilled 5050 2. Semi-skilled 5330 3. Skilled 5610 4. Highly-skilled 6080 5. Clerical employee 6. (a) Class I (b) Class II 6080 5730 7. There is another condition in the said Government Order which says that in case workman is getting particular rate that shall not be reduced in the subsequent year. 8. On the basis of the said Government Order, the contention of the private respondent would be that this was a specific violation of this condition as in the four categories the rates quoted by the petitioner is lower than what these employees are getting earlier. To this contention of the respondent, the petitioner would argue that since he was admittedly L-1 and he was called for negotiation by the Mandi Parishad wherein he has enhanced the rates in order to meet the last year rates, what they are getting, and they have suitably increased the rates. Therefore in accordance with the Government Order dated 06.03.2014 petitioner is liable to continue as per contract dated 21.06.2016 entered between it and Mandi Parishad. He has further relied upon Rule 3 the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, which reads as under:- “3. Therefore in accordance with the Government Order dated 06.03.2014 petitioner is liable to continue as per contract dated 21.06.2016 entered between it and Mandi Parishad. He has further relied upon Rule 3 the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, which reads as under:- “3. Fundamental Principles of Procurement: (1) In all procurement procedures, transparency competitiveness and fairness must be ensured, to secure best value for money. (2) All procurements shall be made through tenders, unless exempted under these rules or under specific order. (3) Invitation of competitive bids shall be open to all participants, unless otherwise specified under the rules or specially restricted by the Competent Authority. (4) The specifications in terms of quality, type etc. as also quantity of goods to be procured, should be clearly spelt out keeping in view the specific needs of the procuring organizations. The specifications so worked out should meet the basic needs of the organization without including superfluous and non-essential features, which may result in unwanted expenditure. Care should also be taken to avoid inventory carrying cost. (5) The Competent Authority shall ensure that the selected item adequately meets the requirement in all respects. (6) Other conditions being equal, the lowest tender should ordinarily be accepted, otherwise, the reasons, why the lowest tender has not been accepted, should always be recorded. (7) The Competent Authority shall satisfy itself that the price of the selected offer is reasonable and consistent with quality. (8) The Competent Authority shall ensure the safe custody of documents of all stages of procurement and must place on record, the considerations, which weighed with it while taking the procurement decisions. (9) Negotiations shall be avoided. It may be conducted under exceptional circumstances with lowest bidder L-1 only and the reasons for such negotiations should be clearly recorded.” (emphasis provided) 9. In view thereof, in case any negotiation would be done, it should be done only with L-1 and since the petitioner was L-1 in the said tender process and moreover, respondent/Mandi Parishad already entered into negotiation with the present petitioner, therefore, there is no violation of any condition of the contract. Therefore, apparently, there has not been any violation of the condition as stipulated by the respondents. There has also been a complete summersault by the Parishad between the stand taken by it in the counter affidavit in writ petition (M/S) No. 1789 of 2016 and now in the impugned order. Therefore, apparently, there has not been any violation of the condition as stipulated by the respondents. There has also been a complete summersault by the Parishad between the stand taken by it in the counter affidavit in writ petition (M/S) No. 1789 of 2016 and now in the impugned order. The fact of the matter is that negotiation with the petitioner were permissible under the law, since he was L-1. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 and tender advertisement dated 07.08.2016 published by respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed.