Suppression of material facts, such as prior debarment, in a tender affidavit constitutes a fraudulent practice. Procurement authorities possess the right to terminate contracts established on such misrepresentations, as the entire business relationship is vitiated by fraud at its inception.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned cancellation order dated 18.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the work order and the agreement dated 24.11.2025 issued in favor of the petitioner were cancelled on account of the submission of a false and concocted affidavit at the time of submitting the bid.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND

2. The factual matrix culminating in the present adjudication, in a nutshell, is delineated as under:

2.1 The respondent No.1-Jaipur Development Authority (for short, ‘JDA’) issued a Notice Inviting Bid (for short, ‘NIB’ or ‘Tender Document’) dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure-3), inter alia inviting online applications for providing various services such as Securitymen Supervisor (Highly Skilled), Security Men (Skilled), and IV Class (Unskilled Labour) services for a period of one year.

2.2 The petitioner, in pursuance of the said NIB, claiming to possess the requisite eligibility, submitted its bid along with a duly notarized affidavit dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure-4). In the said affidavit, it was categorically sworn and stated that the petitioner has never been debarred, blacklisted, or declared a defaulter by any government department, board, corporation, authority, council, hospital, semi-government department, or co-operative unit, and none of the office bearers of the petitioner had been convicted by any Court of Law.

2.3 Consequent to the opening of the bids, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder. Pursuant thereto, the work order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure-5) came to be issued in favour of the petitioner, and thereafter the contract dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure-6) was executed inter se the parties.

2.4 The genesis of the dispute inter se the parties arose upon the receipt of a Show Cause Notice (for short, ‘SCN’) dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-7) issued by respondent No.3 which included a copy of an office order dated 09.12.2024 issued by the Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur (for short, ‘SMS Hospital’). The SCN alleged that the petitioner secured the said work order by submitting a false and concocted affidavit in gross violation of the technical eligibility enshrined under Point No. 13 of Annexure-I, Part-A of the Technical Bid, suppressing its prior debarment by the SMS Hospital.

2.5 Finding the reply to the SCN to be evasive and unsatisfactory, respondent No.3, vide order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure-10), cancelled the work order and the contract qua the petitioner, along with forfeiture of the bank guarantee, and further debarred the petitioner from taking part in future NIBs for a period of six months on account of procuring the work order through fraudulent means.

SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

3. At the outset, Mr. Jagmohan Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned cancellation order is ex facie illegal and suffers from patent arbitrariness. The primary contention advanced by the petitioner is anchored on the timeline of the debarment. It was apprised to this Court that the petitioner was debarred by the SMS Hospital for a limited period of six months, spanning from 09.12.2024 to 06.06.2025. It was next submitted that the present NIB was issued subsequently on 08.08.2025, and the petitioner submitted its bid on 27.08.2025, a