JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The respondent No. 2 invited a request for proposal ( for short, RFP) dated 25.03.2021 for “Engagement and Consultant for Implementation of Accounting Assignments in Chhattisgarh”. Four tenderers including the petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process. The petitioner had submitted its bid on 21.06.2021.

3. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the security deposit made in terms of clause 3.5(f)(f) of the RFP has been forfeited and further, in terms of clause 3.35.2 of the RFP, the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the future tender process of the respondent No. 2 for a period of two years.

4. The order dated 03.11.2021 is, primarily, assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted and that the petitioner had not suppressed any material