Key Points: - The writ petition was dismissed on grounds of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi due to non-disclosure of NIT condition for additional performance security (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner contested the validity of orders under RTPP Act, specifically regarding the demand of additional performance security and related bid documents (!) (!) . - Discussion includes statutory provisions (RTPP Act 2012, Rules 2013, Rule 75A) and the legality of imposing additional performance security post-NIT, including pre- and post- Rule 75A contexts (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court references precedent on clean hands and disclosure obligations in writ petitions (Ramjas Foundation; Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav) to sustain dismissal for concealment and misrepresentation (!) (!) (!) . - The order 7.12.2021 canceling tender process and debarment from re-tender is reviewed in light of the challenged NIT conditions (!) (!) . - The court notes that the petitioner was not only silent about NIT clause 30 and Circular 27.2.2019 but also failed to disclose related undertakings/declarations in the bid, affecting merits of the petition (!) (!) . - The AG argued that additional performance security is now mandatory post-Rule 75A (2020) and that the writ petition is not maintainable due to concealment and estoppel; the court ultimately dismisses the petition (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that tender conditions within bidding documents can be supplemented by procuring entities if within statutory framework, but misrepresentation/disclosure issues bar relief (!) (!) (!) .

What is the legality and validity of the demand for additional performance security under RTPP Act, 2012?

What are the consequences of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi in writ petitions challenging bidding conditions?