JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned counsel with Mr. Meet Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he is appearing for respondent No.2 and he will file his Vakalatnama in the registry.

2. Registry to accept the Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Oza, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Oza, learned counsel with Mr. Meet Shah, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

5. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Contract and Tender seeking below mentioned relief/s:-

“8 (A) That this Court may issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned decision of Respondent No. 2- Samagra Shiksha dated 16.03.2026 numbered as SS/Civil/2026/13461-464 (Annexure - A) and consequentially revoke the debarment of the Petitioner No. 1.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Court may stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned decision of Respondent No. 2- Samagra Shiksha dated 16.03.2026 numbered as SS/Civil/2026/13461-464 (Annexure A) and consequentially inter alia permit the Petitioner No. 1 to participate in tenders on the GeM portal, including that of the Respondents.

(C) For ad-interim, ex parte relief in terms of (B).

(D) For costs.

(E) For such other reliefs as may be deemed appropriate.”

6. The facts giving rise to present petition are that on 12.03.2025, Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6052346 was published on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal by the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan under the Education Department, Gujarat, for procurement of desks and bench/chair sets for classrooms. The bid required supply of 24,750 sets and contained provisions relating to pre-dispatch inspection and sample approval, and was governed by the applicable General Terms and Conditions (GeM 4.0, Version 1.23 dated 05.03.2025).

6.1 Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 2 awarded the contract to the petitioner on 01.07.2025, and a formal contract bearing No. GEMC-511687708497480 was executed for supply of 12,375 sets valued at Rs. 7,78,51,125/-, to be completed by 28.12.2025. The petitioner furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 38,92,556/- and commenced production upon approval of samples by the respondent on 23.09.2025.

6.2 Subsequently, joint inspections were carried out by Respondent No. 2 along with Central Institute of Petrochemicals Engineering and Technology (CIPET). The first inspection of 6,000 sets was found satisfactory. However, during inspection of the remaining 6,375 sets, certain samples failed destructive testing, leading to rejection of the second lot. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the parties, including a clarification sought by the respondent regarding additional supplies and alleged deviations. The petitioner responded by explaining operational constraints and admitted certain procedural lapses while asserting overall compliance and past satisfactory performance.

6.3 Further inspections were conducted at various institutions, and minor defects were pointed out, which were promptly rectified by the petitioner. However, without issuing any prior show cause notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned decision dated 11.03.2026, debarring the petitioner for five years, cancelling other contracts, forfeiting the Performance Bank Guarantee, withholding payments, and directing recall of supplied goods, along with other consequential actions.

6.4 The petitioner, upon receipt of the impugned decision, submitted representations seeking an opportunity of hearing, copies of inspection reports, a