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

1. The contract was terminated primarily due to the petitioner’s failure to file the required affidavit of declaration, which is mandated under Clause 4.2.1(5) of the tender document. The affidavit should have confirmed that the petitioner had not been terminated by any government entity in India for breach of contract or non-compliance (!) (!) .

2. The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that their contract had not been terminated or that they were not ineligible due to previous contract termination. However, this statement was false, as the petitioner’s contract with the State of Sikkim was indeed terminated, which was not disclosed in the affidavit (!) (!) .

3. The court emphasized that the absence of the required affidavit or the submission of a false declaration regarding past contract terminations justified the contract’s termination. The failure to disclose material facts, such as prior contract termination, was deemed sufficient grounds for termination under the tender clauses (!) (!) .

4. The court clarified that while there is no prescribed format for the affidavit under Clause 4.2.1(5), the information required is clear, and the petitioner’s failure to provide true and complete details constituted a breach of the tender conditions (!) (!) .

5. The petitioner argued that the termination was not due to non-performance but due to issues related to delayed payments from the State of Sikkim. The court, however, held that the fact of termination was sufficient to justify the contract’s cancellation, regardless of the reasons behind it (!) (!) .

6. The court also considered the petitioner’s communications and prior legal proceedings, noting that the petitioner had invoked arbitration clauses and that the relevant documents indicated prior disputes and allegations of false signatures, but these did not alter the fundamental issue of non-disclosure in the affidavit (!) (!) .

7. The court concluded that the respondents were justified in terminating the contract based on the petitioner’s false declaration about the status of previous contracts, which constituted fraudulent practice and misrepresentation. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as devoid of merit (!) (!) .

In summary, the case underscores the importance of full disclosure and truthful declarations in tender processes. Failure to comply with these requirements, especially regarding prior contract terminations, provides sufficient legal ground for contract termination and disqualification from bidding.