Judgment V.M. Sahai, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Shushil R. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned counsel for the respondent. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under: 2. The respondent University issued an advertisement on 25.7.2014 inviting e-tenders for supply of answer books for conducting various examinations. The last date for submission of the tender was 31.7.2014 and the technical bid was to be opened on 12th August, 2014. Along with the tender, the petitioner also filled in a form declaring that he has not been blacklisted by any institution fully or partly funded by the Government. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner was blacklisted by Maharaja Krushnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University by order dated 13th June, 2014, as defective answer books were supplied by the petitioner. The said order was communicated to all the Universities in the State as well as to other Government authorities. It appears that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 11949 of 2014 before this Court challenging the said order of blacklisting dated 13th June, 2014. The said petition was filed in the August, 2014 on the ground that Bhavnagar University had passed the impugned order of blacklisting him in violation of the principles of natural justice as he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 15th October, 2014 as the respondent university withdrew the said order dated 13th June, 2014. The effect of the withdrawal of the said order dated 13th June, 2014 was that theory of relate back would apply, meaning thereby, the said order never existed and it will be deemed that there was no order of blacklisting passed against the petitioner on 13th June, 2014 as on the date of submission of the tender. 3. The respondents have not opened the petitioner's technical bid on the ground that the petitioner has concealed from the respondent University the fact of blacklisting him by Bhavnagar University and has made a declaration clearly stating therein that he has not been blacklisted, though the correct fact was that he was blacklisted. The order of blacklisting was subsequently withdrawn by Bhavnagar University before this Court during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 11949 of 2014. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. The order of blacklisting was subsequently withdrawn by Bhavnagar University before this Court during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 11949 of 2014. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. Thacker that when the tender was submitted, the declaration made in the tender was not correct and it amounted to suppression of material fact and we would have rejected this petition on this ground alone. But the scenario changed once the order of blacklisting was withdrawn by Bhavnagar University and there was no order of blacklisting against the petitioner. It appears to us that on the date when the petitioner submitted the tender, the theory of relate back applied, meaning thereby, there was no order of blacklisting existing against the petitioner as the same was already withdrawn. It appears to us that when the petitioner submitted the tender form for taking part in the e-tender process, he was under bona fide belief that the order of blacklisting passed by Bhavnagar University was totally illegal order being passed in violation of principles of natural justice and could not be sustained in law. In any view of the matter, since the order of blacklisting had been withdrawn by Bhavnagar University, the petitioner is entitled to get his technical bid opened by the respondent and his tender may also be considered by the respondent along with other tenders in accordance with the norms fixed by the respondent. 4. Mr. Thacker, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the J & K High Court in the case of M/s. Nayak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State and others, reported in AIR 2014 Jammu & Kashmir 7 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Gajadhar Nishad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in [1990] 2 SCC 486 and has urged that since the petitioner has made wrong statement of fact in the tender document submitted to the respondent, the respondent was well within its right to reject the tender of the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Thacker also relied upon the decision of this Court dated 9th January, 2013 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12184 of 2012 in the case of Power and Instrumentation [Guj.] Ltd. v. AMC & others, decision in the case of Subas Chandra Panda v. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works, Koraput and others, reported in AIR 2004 Orissa 124, the decision in the case of Pankaj Kumar Patel v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in AIR 2006 Orissa 140 and the decision of the Kolkata High Court dated 11.7.2013 in MAT No. 1031 of 2013 : (AIR 2014 (NOC) 28 (Cal.)) in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. 5. We have carefully gone through all these decisions cited by Mr. Thacker. We do not dispute the propositions of law laid down in those judgments, but the principles settled therein do not apply to the facts of the instant case. It appears that the decision of Kolkata High Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks : (AIR 2014 (NOC) 28 (Cal.)) cited by Mr. Thacker was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had decided the matter on 11th September, 2013 and by its judgment in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority reported in [2013] 10 SCC 95 has set aside the judgment of the Kolkata High Court. 6. The tender of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent on 26th August, 2014 on the ground of blacklisting of the petitioner by Bhavnagar University. In our opinion, if the petitioner had made wrong declaration in the tender form about his blacklisting by Bhavnagar University, the respondent was legally duty bound to inform the petitioner that since the petitioner has made wrong declaration that he is not blacklisted, his technical bid cannot be opened. No such information was given by the respondent to the petitioner. The reason for non-consideration of the tender of the petitioner was required to be communicated by the respondent to the petitioner. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Patna Regional Development Authority and others v. Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam and others, reported in [1996] 4 SCC 529 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2074 ) is of no help to the respondent and the respondent was under legal duty to inform the petitioner the reasons for non-consideration or non-opening of his technical bid. If any discrepancy in the tender notice or a wrong statement was found by the respondent, then, they ought to have brought it to the notice of the petitioner. Without doing so, they could not have on their own without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cancelled the tender of the petitioner and refused to open the technical bid submitted by the petitioner. Relevant part of paragraph-18 in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. [supra] is extracted hereunder: "xxx This feature being absent, we think that the filing of the latest income tax return was a collateral term, and accordingly the Tendering Authority ought to have brought this discrepancy to the notice of the appellant Company and if even thereafter no rectification had been carried out, the position may have been appreciably different. xxx" 7. Similarly, in this matter, had the respondent brought to the notice of the petitioner the fact about his blacklisting by Bhavnagar University, the petitioner would have informed that the order was per se illegal and was passed without issuing any show cause notice and the same was challenged before the High Court and subsequently, the said order was withdrawn by Bhavnagar University. 8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. (supra) and in view of the fact that the order of blacklisting of the petitioner was withdrawn by Bhavnagar University as it was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it will relate back to the date on which the said order was passed, that is, on 13th June, 2014 and it I will be deemed that there was no order of blacklisting. 9. For the aforesaid reason, the petitioner's tender or technical bid could not be rejected or refused to be opened on the ground that he has suppressed the material fact and without informing the petitioner about the fact of order of blacklisting, it was not open to the respondent not to consider the tender of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The decision taken by the respondent University on 28-8-2014 of excluding the petitioner from consideration of the tender process and of non-opening of his tender cannot be maintained and the same deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The decision taken by the respondent University on 28-8-2014 of excluding the petitioner from consideration of the tender process and of non-opening of his tender cannot be maintained and the same deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent to consider the technical bid of the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.