ORDER : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The matter has come up for consideration on the application being no. 36387/2015 filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the exparte interim order passed by the Court on 12.06.2015 staying the operation of the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 and the impugned order dated 08.06.2015. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner-firm had submitted the tender before the respondent-JDA for the development of Bagrana Kachhi Basti under Rajeev Awas Yojana, Agra Road, Jaipur, Package 1B (G+3) 816Du's. The technical bid for the said work was opened on 29.09.2014. The respondent-authority after examination of the documents, etc., submitted by the bidders, prepared the evaluation sheet. In the said process, only two bidders i.e. the petitioner and one another had submitted the bank guarantee worth Rs.62,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit. On 10.10.2014, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit the Vat clearance certificate. The petitioner submitted two Vat clearance certificates, one dated 14.10.2014 and one dated 21.08.2014 allegedly issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Division-II, Noida pursuant to the letter dated 13.10.2014 written by the concerned respondent. According to the petitioner, though he had submitted the requisite certificate, the respondent-authority had taken the decision to forfeit the earnest money by invoking the bank guarantee and to debar the petitioner firm from participating in future for a period of 3 years, as per the order sheet dated 03.06.2015, which is part of Annexure-7. 4. The respondents have filed the reply resisting the petition along with preliminary objections contending interalia that the petition was filed without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy by filling first appeal under the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). It is also contended that the petitioner had submitted the forged and fabricated documents namely Vat clearance certificates to procure the tender, in question. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating interalia that the sales tax matters of the petitioner firm were being looked after by one Advocate Shri Sushil Nagar at Noida, and the petitioner was unaware of the alleged of forged certificates procured by him. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating interalia that the sales tax matters of the petitioner firm were being looked after by one Advocate Shri Sushil Nagar at Noida, and the petitioner was unaware of the alleged of forged certificates procured by him. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.P. Singh for the petitioner, taking the Court to the provisions contained in the said Act submitted that the petitioner has not been communicated with the decision taken on the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 for debarring him for three years and that such decision could not have been taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 11 of the said Act, and that the respondent has already written the impugned letter dated 08.06.2015 to the concerned Bank seeking invocation of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. According to him, though the Vat clearance certificate submitted by the petitioner along with his affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3) was forged one, the petitioner was not aware about the said forgery as he had relied upon his agent i.e. the Advocate, whose services have now been terminated. He further submitted that the petitioner had thereafter submitted the certificate dated 14.10.2014, which was genuine one and the contents of both the certificates dated 21.08.2014 and 14.10.2014 being same, no forgery could be said to have been committed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the respondent-authority however vehemently submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the Court in the petition for obtaining the exparte order, and even otherwise he had submitted the forged and false certificates for procuring tender in his favour. He also submitted that so far no decision has been taken by the concerned authority of the respondents to debar the petitioner as alleged, and no cause of action could be said to have arisen from the notings in the file. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, at the outset it is required to be stated that the petitioner has not only suppressed the material facts in the petition, but has also not come with clean hands. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, at the outset it is required to be stated that the petitioner has not only suppressed the material facts in the petition, but has also not come with clean hands. Though the petitioner knew that the impugned action of invoking the Bank guarantee submitted by him was taken by the respondents as the petitioner was found to have submitted forged Vat clearance certificates, the said fact was not disclosed in the petition. It was only when the respondents filed the reply to the effect that such false affidavits and the false certificates were produced by the petitioner before the respondent-authority in order to procure the tender in question, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating that the same was done by his Advocate without his knowledge. The said contention is not believable inasmuch as the petitioner himself had filed the affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3), stating interalia that the Commercial Tax certificates issued by the Dy. Commissioner on 21.08.2014 and 14.10.2014 submitted by him were correct and genuine. When the said two certificates submitted by the petitioner raised suspicion about their genuineness, the respondents had inquired from the concerned authority, who vide the letter dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-R/5) intimated that no such certificates were issued by him. The respondents thereafter had taken the decision to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner towards the bid security. 8. It is pertinent to note that when the petitioner had not submitted the Vat clearance certificate as asked for by the respondent vide letter dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-2), and was given last opportunity to submit the same by 14.10.2014, the petitioner submitted one certificate dated 14.10.2014 along with the letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure-R/1), and another certificate dated 21.08.2014 along with the letter dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-R/2), stating that the said certificate dated 21.08.2014 was already submitted by him earlier. In the affidavit dated 18.10.2014, he stated that both the certificates were correct and genuine, when both were forged one and produced only because the last date for submission was 14.10.2014. The petitioner in the rejoinder has not disputed that the said certificates were forged one, however has come out with the story that the same were obtained by his Advocate, whose services were subsequently terminated. The petitioner in the rejoinder has not disputed that the said certificates were forged one, however has come out with the story that the same were obtained by his Advocate, whose services were subsequently terminated. When the petitioner was aware about the forgery committed by his Advocate, he should have stated all facts in the petition itself and not in the rejoinder when the respondents disclosed the correct facts. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts and that the petitioner had not stated the correct facts only with a view to mislead the Court and to obtain exparte order in his favour. 9. It is also pertinent to note that admittedly no decision has been taken by the respondent-authority to debar the petitioner as alleged by him. The respondent-authority has only written the letter to the concerned Bank for invocation of the bank guarantee as the petitioner was found to have submitted forged certificates to procure the tender. The law relating to invocation of Bank guarantee is well settled by the Supreme Court in case of UP State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1644 , in which it has been held interalia that the courts should be slow in granting injunction against the invocation of Bank guarantee given in commercial dealings. 10. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner being guilty of suppression of material facts and having not come with clean hands, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), which will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Authority within one week. By this order, the stay application and other pending application if any, also stand dismissed. Interim order staying invocation of bank guarantee set aside-Petitioner's application for not invoking bank guarantee and other pending application, if any, dismissed.