JUDGMENT : K.J.THAKER, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and a ow this petition. (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction and, thereby, by pleased to quash and set aside the order/circular dated 4.5.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the respondentNo.3. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay implementation, operation and execution of the order dated13.08.2013passedbytherespondentNo.3.” 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the petitioner is a registered Saharkari Mandal. On 10.2.2012, the respondent No.2 herein issued an advertisement, inviting on-line tenders from the registered contractors. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner-society submitted its bid. On 15.3.2012, the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that the petitioner is at lowest rank. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner to give security deposit within a period of two days and in case of default, appropriate proceedings will be taken at per the tender clause. On 22.3.2012, the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 that it wants to withdraw from competition on the ground that due to mistake, the petitioner quoted low price in all the tenders and also requested to refund the EMD. On 11.4.2012 and 20.4.2012, the petitioner has informed the respondent No.2 about the facts, which are already stated in letter dated 23.3.2012 and requested not to proceed further regarding registration of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 4.5.2012, the respondent No.2 forfeited the Earnest Money Deposits furnished by the petitioner-society for eight different works. On 4.5.2012, the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the petitioner has failed to submit security deposit for eight different works, mentioned in the said letter and, therefore, the registration of the petitioner will be kept in abeyance and for the said purpose, the concerned department will be informed. On 27.6.2012, the respondent No.3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why penal proceedings should not be initiated against him. Thereafter, on 27.6.2013, the petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out correct aspect of the matter. On 9.10.2012, the respondent No.3 also issued second show cause notice. On 27.6.2012, the respondent No.3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why penal proceedings should not be initiated against him. Thereafter, on 27.6.2013, the petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out correct aspect of the matter. On 9.10.2012, the respondent No.3 also issued second show cause notice. Thereafter on 13.8.2013, the respondent No.3 has kept “E1 Class” registration granted by the Government of Gujarat to the petitioner in abeyance for a period of three years. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents ought to have appreciated the fact that the price quoted by the petitioner is on very lower side and the said prices were quoted because of some mistake, which was bona-fide and it is not possible for the petitioner-society to carry on the work at the said rate and, therefore, the petitioner has immediately informed the concerned respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the aforesaid tenders. Thus, the respondents ought to have appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have punished twice for the mistake committed by the petitioner. At this stage, it is submitted that by way of the order dated 4.5.2012, the Earnest Money Deposits submitted by the petitioner for eight different contracts are already forfeited and for the same mistake, once again another order dated 13.8.2013 is passed by the respondent no.3, by which , the registration of the petitioner is kept in abeyance for a period of three years. Thus, the petitioner submits that there will be double jeopardy. Hence, on this ground also, the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 by which EMDs of the petitioner are forfeited, however, the impugned order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 is very harsh order and it will be a stigma. Hence, the said order may be quashed and set aside. Hence, the said order may be quashed and set aside. As stated above, there was bona-fide mistake on the part of the petitioner-society in quoting price and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner-society, same has been pointed out of the concerned respondents by way of letter and thereby a request was made to withdraw them from the competition. Further, the petitioner has also pointed out in one of the letters that it was their first mistake and they may be pardoned. Inspite of that, on one hand, the respondents, the respondents-authorities have forfeited their EMDs and on the other hand, the “E1 Class” registration has been kept in abeyance for a period of three years. Thus, the respondents-authorities have taken harsh action for a very small mistake on the part of the petitioner. Hence, necessary orders may be passed in the matter. 4. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the respondents have supported the orders impugned in this petition and submitted that the same were passed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, both have relied on the latest decision of the Apex Court and have contended that the observations and the guidelines made therein by the Authorities concerned. Paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 are extracted below : “20.EVALUATIONOFPRICEBID: 20.1 The rates shall be considered as filled up by the bidder-on-line in the prescribed schedule-B. The price mentioned in schedule-B shall be considered for evaluation. 21. AWARDOFCONTRACT 21.1 Employer reserves the right to award either as specified in Para 23.1hereinorrejectoneora bids. 21.2 If in the opinion of the employer lowest evaluated prices appear to be on higher side, employer may negotiate with the lowest evaluated responsive bidder.” 6. One aspect is very clear that there is no willful failure on the part of the petitioner to perform in case of terms one or more even there is no history of the present petitioner as being so. Therefore, guidelines stipulated will not permit us to allow the petition in toto since the petitioner participated in the process tender and he was declared successful and it only thereafter, he approached the concerned authorities to withdraw his bid. Therefore, guidelines stipulated will not permit us to allow the petition in toto since the petitioner participated in the process tender and he was declared successful and it only thereafter, he approached the concerned authorities to withdraw his bid. Be that as it may blacklisting now will not continue till tomorrow i.e. 1st February, 2014 as punishment since punishment of six months of blacklisting is sufficient. 7. We are in agreement with the submission made by the State that this is done in a special case and the same is to be treated as a precedent. This is the first lapse on the part of the petitioner-society. 8. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs.