JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rutul Desai for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the respondent, in both the Special Civil Applications, at length.

1.1 The two petitions are interconnected in terms of the facts and controversy. The first captioned petition is based on subsequent developments. Both the petitions were notified were heard together, and are treated by this common judgment.

2. What is prayed in Special Civil Application No.11731 of 2018 is to set aside order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the respondent Gujarat Urban Development Company. By the said order the petitioner came to be debarred for three years from bidding the tenders of the respondent. It was also prayed to set aside show-cause notice dated 2.4.2018. Next prayed was to direct the respondent to return the amount of earnest money deposit with interest.

2.1 The prayer in other Special Civil Application No.10606 of 2017, filed previous to the aforementioned petition was for quashing of the e-tender notice dated 25.4.2017 in respect of the work of design construction and commission of sewage treatment plant at Veraval, which tender notice was in nature of re-invitation. The petitioner prayed to cancel the bids received by the respondent company pursuant to the said tender process. The petitioner wanted the respondent to issue the letter of award in its capacity of L-1 in the tender process.

3. The respondent Gujarat Urban Development Company, which is a Government of Gujarat undertaking and an instrumentality of 'state', wanted to install sewage treatment plant at different places, under the Amrut Yojna. A common e-tender notice was issued for the work of design, supply, construction, testing of commissioning of plants at Anand, Deesa, Valsad, Bharuch and Veraval. The sewage treatment plant to be installed at Veraval was of 33.90 mld. The petitioner became the lowest bidder for Veraval, however was not given the letter of award even after passage of long time. The petitioner stated that though the petitioner was not disqualified, without assigning any reasons, respondent straightway issued e-tender notice dated 24.5.2017 which later became subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.10606 of 2017.

3.1 The re-invited e-tender process came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing different Special Civil Applications of which Special Civil Application No.10606 of 2017 pertained to the tender for Veraval. This court issued notice on 2.6.2017 making it returnable on 5.6.2017. As per the say of the petitioner, the notice was served on it on 2.6.2017. In the meantime a show-cause notice dated 16.5.2017 was served upon the petitioner. While the allegation of the petitioner is that the said notice was backdated, therein the petitioner was called upon by the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted on the ground that in submitting the bid, the petitioner had suppressed material information in respect of the order dated 6.11.2015. The said order dated 6.11.2015 was passed by the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructural Development Project, whereby the petitioner was debarred for three years. It appears that the petitioner company with its collaborating company was awarded the work in Rajasthan project as joint venture. The Rajasthan project had blacklisted the said bidder. The order dated 6.11.2015 came to be set aside by the Rajasthan High Court, allowing the Civil Writ Petition No.6375 of 2017.

3.2 The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice dated 16.5.2017 on 10.6.2017, contending that the order of the Rajasthan project was not known to it and that the same was set aside by the Rajasthan High Court. The allegations in the show cause notice about suppression of facts were denied by the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner company had also filed arbitration proceedings No.131 of 2014 against the Rajasthan project for recovery of Rs