Based on the legal document provided, the key points are as follows:

1. The petitioner, PMR Consortium, challenged the award of contracts to the opposite party, Manju Services, for packages 5 and 8, alleging that Manju Services submitted false declarations regarding its prior debarment status and engaged in fraudulent practices during the tender process (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The core issue was whether Manju Services' bid should have been rejected due to suppression of material facts, specifically its prior debarment by Angul Municipality, which was not disclosed in the bid documents, constituting a fraudulent practice under the applicable tender conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The tender conditions explicitly provided that any material misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or incomplete disclosure could lead to rejection of the bid and disqualification of the bidder, including the entire consortium if applicable (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The bid submitted by Manju Services contained a declaration stating that it was not barred by any government or public agency from participating in similar projects, which was found to be false because the company had been debarred by Angul Municipality prior to the bid submission but did not disclose this fact (!) (!) (!) .

5. The document emphasizes that suppression or incomplete disclosure of facts related to prior debarment or cancellation of tenders constitutes fraudulent practice, which is grounds for disqualification and rejection of the bid (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the tender documents and concluded that the bid of Manju Services was tainted by fraud due to the suppression of material facts, rendering the bid invalid and justifying the cancellation of the contract award (!) .

7. The court held that even subsequent revocation of debarment orders after the bid submission does not absolve the bidder from the obligation to disclose prior debarment, especially when the declaration explicitly asked for such information, and non-disclosure amounts to fraudulent practice (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court ultimately quashed the award of the contracts to Manju Services and directed the authorities to take appropriate follow-up action in accordance with law, emphasizing that the integrity of the bidding process must be upheld and that fraudulent practices cannot be tolerated (!) .

9. The decision underscores the importance of truthful disclosure and strict compliance with tender conditions to prevent misconduct and ensure fairness in procurement processes (!) (!) (!) .

10. The court's ruling affirms that acts of suppression or misrepresentation during tender submissions, especially concerning material facts like debarment, are considered fraudulent practices that invalidate the bid and justify legal intervention.