Bela M. Trivedi, J.

The matter has come up for consideration on the application being no. 36387/2015 filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the exparte interim order passed by the Court on 12.06.2015 staying the operation of the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 and the impugned order dated 08.06.2015.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage.

3. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner-firm had submitted the tender before the respondent-JDA for the development of Bagrana Kachhi Basti under Rajeev Awas Yojana, Agra Road, Jaipur, Package 1B (G+3) 816Du's. The technical bid for the said work was opened on 29.09.2014. The respondent-authority after examination of the documents, etc., submitted by the bidders, prepared the evaluation sheet. In the said process, only two bidders i.e. the petitioner and one another had submitted the bank guarantee worth Rs.62,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit. On 10.10.2014, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit the Vat clearance certificate. The petitioner submitted two Vat clearance certificates, one dated 14.10.2014 and one dated 21.08.2014 allegedly issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Division-II, Noida pursuant to the letter dated 13.10.2014 written by the concerned respondent. According to the petitioner, though he had submitted the requisite certificate, the respondent-authority had taken the decision to forfeit the earnest money by invoking the bank guarantee and to debar the petitioner firm from participating in future for a period of 3 years, as per the order sheet dated 03.06.2015, which is part of Annexure-7.

4. The respondents have filed the reply resisting the petition along with preliminary objections contending interalia that the petition was filed without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy by filling first appeal under the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). It is also contended that the petitioner had submitted the forged and fabricated documents namely Vat clearance certificates to procure the tender, in question. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating interalia that the sales tax matters of the petitioner firm were being looked after by one Advocate Shri Sushil Nagar at Noida, and the petitioner was unaware of the alleged of forged certificates procured by him.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.P. Singh for the petitioner, taking the Court to the provisions contained in the said Act submitted that the petitioner has not been communicated with the decision taken on the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 for debarring him for three years and that such decision could not have been taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 11 of the said Act, and that the respondent has already written the impugned letter dated 08.06.2015 to the concerned Bank seeking invocation of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. According to him, though the Vat clearance certificate submitted by the petitioner along with his affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3) was forged one, the petitioner was not aware about the said forgery as he had relied upon his agent i.e. the Advocate, whose services have now been terminated. He further submitted that the petitioner had thereafter submitted the certificate dated 14.10.2014, which was genuine one and the contents of both the certificates dated 21.08.2014 and 14.10.2014 being same, no forgery could be said to have been committed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the respondent-authority however vehemently submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the Court in the petition for obtaining the exparte order, and even otherwise he had submitted the forged and false certificates for procuring tender in his favour. He also submitted that so far no deci