Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S. Sahara Ex Servicemen Welfare … vs Jaipur Development Authority on 29 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17798]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5442/2026
M/s. Sahara Ex Servicemen Welfare Co-Operative Society
Limited, 304, 54 R.k. Puram Naxgar, Near Khirni Phatak,
Khatipura Jaipur Through Its President Samandar Singh
Choudhary S/o Shri Sukhram Singh Choudhary Aged 72 Years,
R/o 54, R.k. Puram White Temple, Khatipura, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas
Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
Through Its Commissioner
2. Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Jaipur
Development Authority, Room No.15 M.b., Ram Kishore
Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur
3. Additional Commissioner Administration, Jaipur
Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Indira Circle, Jawhar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmohan Saxena with
Mr. Khushal Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ambika Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1 Arguments concluded on 27/04/2026
2 Judgment Reserved on 27/04/2026
3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 29/04/2026
REPORTABLE :
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
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (2 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]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.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (3 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (4 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
its bid on 27.08.2025, and that the petitioner was not actively
debarred at the time of submission of the bid. Thus, operating
under the bona fide belief that past debarments did not disqualify
the bidder, the petitioner did not disclose the same.
4. Per contra, Ms. Ambika Sharma, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents, vehemently opposed the present
petition. It was stoutly contended by the learned counsel that the
petitioner deliberately concealed the material fact qua its
debarment by the SMS Hospital. It was submitted that by doing
so, the petitioner submitted a false and concocted affidavit in
order to unlawfully gain the work order. It was urged that this
active suppression is in gross violation of Point No. 13 of
Annexure-I, Part-A of the Technical Bid, and therefore, the
respondents have rightly issued the impugned cancellation order
in accordance with the provisions enshrined under Clause 13 of
the Tender Document.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
5. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and upon an assiduous perusal of the
material available on record, including but not limited to the
affidavit dated 27.08.2025 furnished by the petitioner and the
office order dated 09.12.2024 issued by the SMS Hospital, the
sole issue for determination before this Court is whether the
suppression of the past debarment by the petitioner-society by
way of furnishing a duly notarized affidavit warranted the issuance
of the impugned cancellation order.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (5 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, in pursuance of
the NIB in question, submitted its bid along with a duly notarized
affidavit dated 27.08.2025, wherein it was categorically stated
that the petitioner had 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. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioner, by way of the said affidavit,
had undertaken that if any of the conditions enshrined under the
Tender Document is violated, the bid of the petitioner will be
cancelled.
7. It is equally undisputed that vide the impugned cancellation
order dated 18.03.2026, the contract and the work order qua the
petitioner have been cancelled by respondent No.3 on account of
furnishing a false and concocted affidavit.
8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the provisions under
which the cancellation order qua the petitioner has been issued by
the respondents.
9. It is the case of the respondents that as per the technical
eligibility enshrined under Point No. 13 of Annexure-I, Part-A of
the Technical Bid, every bidder at the time of submission of its bid
is under a mandatory obligation to declare by way of an affidavit
that the bidder is not blacklisted or declared defaulter by any
government department, board, corporation. The said eligibility is
reproduced as under:
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (6 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
13. cksyhnkrk QeZ ds fdlh jktdh; cksyhnkrk }kjk bl lEcU/k
laLFkk@cksMZ@dkWjiksjs’ku ls Cysd&fyLVsM vFkok esa :i;s 100-00 ds
fMQkYVj ugha gksuk pkfg,A ukWu&T;wfMf’k;y LVkEi ij
‘kiFk&i= izLrqr djuk gSA
10. Moreover, Annexure A of the Tender Document, Compliance
with the Code of Integrity and No Conflict of Interest Clause, sub-
clause (b), also imposes a mandatory condition upon the
petitioner to not misrepresent or mislead the respondents to gain
any benefit, and sub-clause (h) casts an obligation to disclose any
debarment by any other procuring entity. The said clauses are
reproduced as under:
“…(b) Not misrepresent or omit that misleads or
attempts to mislead so as to obtain a financial or other
benefit or avoid an obligation;
(h) Disclose any previous transgressions with any
entity in India or any other country during the last
three years or any debarment by any other procuring
entity…”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The respondents, prima facie, established their case by
pointing out a manifest incongruity in the said affidavit furnished
by the petitioner. The nitty-gritty of the instant dispute reveals
that upon a bare perusal of the affidavit, it was categorically
sworn that the petitioner had never been debarred, blacklisted, or
declared a defaulter till the date of furnishing the said affidavit.
However, the order dated 09.12.2024 issued by the SMS Hospital
explicitly states that the petitioner had been debarred from taking
part in the tender process for a period of six months. This overlap,
coupled with the active suppression of a transgression that fell
within the restrictive 3-year window outlined in Annexure A(h),
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (7 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
casts a serious shadow of doubt on the authenticity and legal
validity of the said affidavit.
12. As the said fact came into the knowledge of the respondents,
and after issuance of the SCN dated 02.02.2026, the respondents
invoked Clause 13 of the Tender Document, which reserves the
right to terminate the contract, forfeit the bank guarantee,
blacklist the bidder, and cancelled the contract and the work order
of the petitioner on account of gross violation of the terms and
conditions enshrined under the NIB. For a meticulous
understanding of the case at hand, the said clause is reproduced
as under:
^^13&,tsUlh dk dk;Z larks”kizn ugha ik;s tkus ij vFkok vuqcU/k dh ‘krksZ
dk mYya?ku djus ij vuqcU/k rqjUr izHkko ls lekIr fd;k tk ldsxk ,oa
,slh ,tsUlh dks fu;ekuqlkj CySd fyLV djus dh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tk
ldsxh ,oa dk;Z lEiknu izfrHkwfr jkf’k tCr dh tk ldsxhA**
(emphasis supplied)
13. In light of the above-mentioned provisions enshrined under
the Tender Document, the respondents possess the indefeasible
authority to cancel the work order of the bidder if the foundation
of such work order is built upon false and concocted information.
Therefore, it can be said that the respondents have the rightful
authority to issue the cancellation order to any bidder if there is a
violation of any of the above-mentioned provisions.
14. Thus, operating as the sentinel on the qui vive (watchful
guardian of rights), this Court finds itself in complete consonance
with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents. The petitioner’s contention that the debarment
period had expired prior to the NIB is legally hollow, inasmuch as
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (8 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
the Code of Integrity expressly mandated the disclosure of any
previous transgressions within the last three years. The affidavit
qua declaration of blacklisting, debarment, or being declared a
defaulter by any procuring entity is required to analyze the past
operational record and commercial integrity of the bidder, and
therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from its liability by taking
a plea that at the time of the submission of the bid, the petitioner
was not actively debarred by any procuring entity.
15. The petitioner deliberately misrepresented and misled the
respondents by concealing and suppressing the material fact of
previous debarment by the SMS Hospital and furnished a false and
concocted affidavit in order to gain an undue advantage by
obtaining a work order from the respondents.
16. For the better adjudication of the case at hand, this Court
places reliance upon the dictum encapsulated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. U.P. State
Bridge Corporation Limited, reported in 2020 INSC 686,
wherein dealing with the issue qua suppression of material facts in
a Tender Document, it was categorically held that the non-
disclosure of an adverse order or an indictment constitutes a
“fraudulent practice” aimed at influencing the bidding process. The
relevant extract of the aforesaid dictum is reproduced as under:
“19….Also, Shri Saurabh Mishra is correct in stating
that “fraudulent practice”, as defined in clause 4.3(b) of
the N.I.T., would include an omission of facts or
disclosure of incomplete facts in order to influence
the bidding process. In the facts of the present case,
there is clearly an omission of a most relevant fact and(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (9 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]suppression of the same fact, namely that an FIR had
been lodged against UPSBC in respect of the
construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed, and
in which a charge sheet had been lodged.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Additionally, addressing the gravity of submitting false and
concocted affidavits to secure commercial contracts, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India
Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 70, deprecated such
practices, unequivocally laying down that the sanctity of affidavits
must be preserved and protected. The relevant extract of the said
dictum is reproduced as under:
“2. A global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a
false affidavit indicates that the number of such cases
that are reported has shown an alarming increase in
the last fifteen years as compared to the number of
such cases prior to that. This ‘trend’ is certainly an
unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged,
well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be
treated as a routine and normal affair.”
(emphasis supplied)
PARTING NOTE AND CONCLUSION
18. Relying upon the office order dated 09.12.2024 issued by the
SMS Hospital, the respondents acted strictly in accordance with
the provisions enshrined under the Tender Document, and rightly
issued the impugned cancellation order dated 18.03.2026. The
action of the respondents inter alia cancelling the work order of
the petitioner, along with the forfeiture of the bank guarantee and
debarment of the petitioner from taking part in the future NIBs for
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17798] (10 of 10) [CW-5442/2026]
a period of six months on account of the grave misconduct of
procuring the work order through fraudulent means, was taken
after providing opportunity of being heard, following the due
procedure of law, and adhering to the principles of natural justice.
19. It is trite that if the seeds of a commercial relationship
between a private entity and the State are planted in fraud, every
subsequent offshoot that grows from such seeds, including the
work order, the contract inter se the parties, and even subsequent
work done under the said contract, is fatally infected with the
poison of fraud. A product of fraud is fundamentally in conflict with
the public policy of India, and the basic notions of morality and
justice. Consequently, a tender issuing authority is entirely
justified in terminating a contract and cancelling the work order
the moment it is established that the successful bidder relied on a
false representation to cross the threshold of technical or financial
eligibility.
20. In view of the foregoing discussions, findings, and analysis,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish
any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in issuance of
the cancellation order dated 18.03.2026 by the respondents.
Thus, no interference is warranted upon the said impugned order
by this Court.
21. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being bereft of any
merit, stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:32:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 11:33:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)