ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai with learned advocate Mr. Rutul Desai for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krishna Desai for the respondent No. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 and learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for the respondent No. 5 on advance copy. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Krishna Desai waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 6. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 5. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relevant prayers: (a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 23.12.2025 (received on 26.12.2025) (at ANNEXURE-A) intimating the disqualification of the petitioner from bidding in future tenders of the Surat Municipal Corporation for a period of one year, being arbitrary, unreasoned, unilateral and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thereby violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the arbitrary and unilateral decision taken by the Standing Committee vide Resolution No. 2402/2025 dated 17.02.2025 (at ANNEXURE-B ), being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent – Corporation to issue work order in favour of the petitioner from being L-1 Bidder in relation to Tender Id No. 207689. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner submitted its bid for the tender invited by the respondent–Corporation for supply, erection, testing and commissioning work of electrical and mechanical equipment with modification and augmentation of Sarthana Sewage Pumping Station, along with operation and maintenance work for five years for Sarthana Zone, Drainage Department of Surat Municipal Corporation. 4. 4. The petitioner submitted its bid for the online tender on e-portal on 19.08.2025 as per the requirements described in the tender document. As per the requirements of the tender, bidders were required to put up negative or positive price list based on estimated price quoted by the respondent – Corporation. 5. The petitioner along with the tender submitted an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 4,55,700/- being 1 percent of total estimated project cost as per the terms of the tender by furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 2,27,850/- and the remaining amount was paid through demand draft. 6. The petitioner was thereafter declared technically qualified along with four other bidders. Thereafter, financial bids were opened by the respondent – Corporation, wherein it was noticed by the petitioner that inadvertently, in one of the items, namely Schedule B1 – Electro-Mechanical (Capital) Work for Sarthana SPS, the petitioner has wrongly quoted the rate in negative, i.e –25.5% of the estimated price of Rs. 3,08,51,200/-, whereas the petitioner was required to bid for the same on the positive side. Considering the said aspect, the petitioner was declared L-1 bidder for the said work. 7. The petitioner thereafter immediately on 24.09.2025 requested the respondent – Corporation to cancel the submitted tender of the petitioner without taking any harsh action and further requested for re-invitation of the bid considering the bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner. 8. Considering the request of the petitioner, respondent-Corporation by letter dated 23.10.2025 intimated the bank for forfeiture of the EMD in view of the cancellation of the bid by the petitioner. Further, the bank informed the petitioner about letter received from respondent – Corporation for forfeiture of EMD. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the Standing Committee of the respondent – Corporation in the meeting held on 17.12.2025 passed a resolution for disqualification of the petitioner in view of the withdrawal of the tender by the petitioner. The petitioner, having the knowledge of such meeting by communication dated 16.12.2025 requested the respondent – Corporation not to take any harsh action of disqualification/blacklisting and to only forfeit the EMD. 10. The petitioner, having the knowledge of such meeting by communication dated 16.12.2025 requested the respondent – Corporation not to take any harsh action of disqualification/blacklisting and to only forfeit the EMD. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such request and communication, the Standing Committee of the respondent – Corporation without issuing any show cause notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed a resolution No. 2402/2025 resolving that the petitioner be disqualified for a period of one year from future tenders of the Surat Municipal Corporation along with forfeiture of EMD. 11. It is also the case of the petitioner that the unilateral decision of the Standing Committee was communicated through letter dated 23.12.2025 to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner received the said letter dated 23.12.2025 on 26.12.2025. The petitioner thereafter was served with a copy of another communication dated 01.01.2026, wherein the Deputy Municipal Commissioner has communicated to all departments of the Surat Municipal Corporation intimating about the decision taken in Standing Committee vide Resolution No. 2402/2025. 13. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 14. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire action of the respondent – Corporation, more particularly, the resolution passed by the Standing Committee is in violation of the principles of natural justice as neither any show cause notice has been issued by the respondent – Corporation nor any opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner for disqualification from filing the tenders for the works of the respondent – Corporation for a period of one year as per the resolution No. 2402/ 2025. 15. It was further submitted that though there was a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner in the financial bid by stating the negative price instead of positive price, the petitioner immediately on the next day of opening of the tender withdrew bid for the tender. 16. It was therefore submitted that there was no malafide action on part of the petitioner to call for any disqualification and the petitioner has also requested by a letter dated 16.12.2025 to the respondent – Corporation for not taking any harsh action in view of such inadvertent mistake committed by the petitioner. 17. It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. 17. It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai that the respondent – Corporation has quoted the fresh tender. However, in view of the resolution of the Standing Committee, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the next tender process for no fault on part of the petitioner. 18. It was therefore submitted that the prayers made in the petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. 2402/2025 passed by the Standing Committee of the respondent – Corporation and consequential communications issued by the Deputy Commissioner and petitioner may be permitted to take part in the fresh tender process of the work in question issued by the respondent – Corporation. 19. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena appearing for the respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 5 – Surat Municipal Corporation on the basis of the advanced copy served by the petitioner. 20. Learned advocate Mr. Meena referred to the averments made in affidavit-in-reply to justify the action taken by the Standing Committee of the respondent – Corporation. It was further submitted that this Court has limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and has relied upon various decisions in support of such averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. 21. This matter was listed for hearing on 19.01.2026 and learned advocate Mr. Meena candidly submitted that a new show cause notice was issued by the respondent – Corporation prior to the decision taken by the Standing Committee in the meeting held on 17.12.2025 to disqualify the petitioner. Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate Mr. Meena has tendered the additional affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 5 – Municipal Corporation affirmed by Ajay J. Patel, working as Deputy Engineer (Electrical), Surat Municipal Corporation with following averments: (1) That I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case from the official records. I am duly authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of respondent – Corporation. (2) That upon perusal of the minutes of the Standing Committee meeting held on 17.12.2025 (wherein Resolution No. 2402/2025 was passed), it appears that no formal notice for hearing was issued to the petitioner, nor was a separate personal hearing afforded to the petitioner during the said meeting and accordingly decision was taken as per tender terms and conditions. (2) That upon perusal of the minutes of the Standing Committee meeting held on 17.12.2025 (wherein Resolution No. 2402/2025 was passed), it appears that no formal notice for hearing was issued to the petitioner, nor was a separate personal hearing afforded to the petitioner during the said meeting and accordingly decision was taken as per tender terms and conditions. That the competent authority is ready and willing to provide personal hearing to the petitioner. That the copy of the relevant minutes/extract of the Standing Committee meeting dated 17.12.2025 is annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure – AA1”. 22. In view of the above averments made in the additional affidavit-in-reply, it is apparent that for the decision made in the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 17.12.2025, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for giving an opportunity of hearing regarding the disqualification. 23. In view of such undisputed facts, without entering into further merits, the impugned decision of the Standing Committee dated 17.12.2025 vide Resolution No. 2402/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.