JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and propriety of the order dated 02. 01. 2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 05. 12. 2017, issued in favour of the petitioner-firm, has been cancelled and the award of contract for transportation of bulk POL by road Ex-Jodhpur has also been cancelled. 2. The petitioner-firm is involved in transportation of bulk POL products and it has applied pursuant to the tender notification dated 11. 07. 2017 issued by the HPCL, whereby applications were invited from interested and eligible transporters for work transportation of bulk POL by road Ex-Jodhpur. The last date of submission of tender document was fixed as 09. 08. 2017. The petitioner-firm being eligible and interested submitted its e-tender on 08. 08. 2017 and uploaded all the relevant documents along with its e-tender. 3. As per the petitioner-firm, it has offered around 6 tanktrucks of the capacity of above 12 kl. and 17 tank-trucks of the capacity of above 18 kl. Out of 23 tank-trucks offered by the petitioner, 9 tank-trucks are owned by the petitioner-firm, however, rest of the tank-trucks were attached with the petitioner-firm. As per the petitioner-firm all the required documents in respect of each and every tank-truck have been submitted by the petitioner-firm in its bid. 4. It is averred by the petitioner-firm in the writ petition that since it offered 9 tank-trucks owned by it in the total lot of 23 tank-trucks, the petitioner-firm was being asked to reduce some of the tank-trucks attached along with the petitioner-firm. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has proposed to remove the tanktrucks of the capacity of 18 kl. and thereafter the respondentCorporation issued a Letter of Acceptance on 05. 12. 2017 for award of contract in favour of the petitioner-firm for 19 tanktrucks. 5. It is averred in the petition that as the petitioner-firm was required to bring the original documents for verification, it has called upon all the original documents from the persons, whose tank-trucks were attached in the fleet of the petitioner, however, during the course of verification of the original documents submitted by those persons, it was found that 2 tank-trucks offered by two persons were having incorrect calibration certificates. It is contended that as the petitioner-firm has submitted the duplicates of those calibration certificates in good faith but after coming to know that the said certificates are incorrect, the petitioner-firm immediately submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 on 13. 12. 2017 while informing the said fact and requested for cancellation of said 2 tank-trucks from the fleet as withdrawn. The petitioner-firm has also offered that even the earnest money deposited by the petitioner-firm may be forfeited. 6. It is averred in the petition that there is no malafide intention of the petitioner-firm in submitting the forged calibration certificates of 2 tank-trucks and it has acted in good faith and relied upon the certificates submitted by other individuals but as soon as it came to know about the deficiency in the certificates, it has immediately informed the respondents. 7. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner-firm has already been awarded contract for transportation of POL products at Ajmer and is carrying out its business with the HPCL from last so many years and during that period, no irregularity with regard to any document/certificate of any tank-trucks offered by the petitioner was found and looking to all these circumstances, the respondent Corporation has issued LoA in favour of the petitioner-firm for Ex-Ajmer II. 8. It is further averred in the petition that pursuant to the LoA, the petitioner-firm submitted all the original documents with regard to the fleet offered by the petitioner-firm along with bank guarantee of Rs. 8 lac with respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 accepted the same subject to further clearance. However on 19. 12. 2017, the representative of the petitioner-firm was called and all the documents along with the bank guarantee submitted by it on 16. 12. 2017 were returned. 9. It is further averred in the petition that the petitionerfirm was shocked after receiving a communication dated 02. 1. 2018, whereby the entire award of contract in its favour has been cancelled. Hence, this writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two calibration certificates of the tank-trucks attached with the petitioner-firm offered in the fleet were incorrect and the same has been informed by the petitioner proactively to the respondent authorities, however, the respondent-authorities while acting in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner has cancelled the entire contract of the petitioner-firm vide order dated 02. 01. 2018. 11. It is also contended that once LoA is issued by the respondents, it cannot be cancelled without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-firm. It is, therefore, contended that impugned order dated 02. 01. 2018 is liable to be set aside as being violative of principles of natural justice. 12. It is also contended that the petitioner-firm has submitted incorrect calibration certificates under a belief that the same are genuine and as soon as it was revealed that the said certificates are forged one, the petitioner-firm immediately informed the respondents about the same and looking to this alone, it is clear that there is no malafides on the part of the petitioner-firm. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore, prayed that the impugned letter dated 02. 01. 2018 may be set aside and respondent HPCL may be directed to execute the agreement with the petitioner-firm in pursuance of the LoA dated 05. 12. 2017 except the 2 tank-trucks, which have already been withdrawn by the petitioner-firm. 14. Reply to the writ petition is preferred on behalf of the respondent-HPCL, wherein it is stated that there is no illegality in the impugned letter dated 02. 01. 2018 and the same has rightly been issued by it as the petitioner has submitted incorrect/forged calibration certificate in relation to 2 tank-trucks and in view of the terms and conditions of the tender, the Letter of Acceptance dated 05. 12. 2017 has rightly been cancelled. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that a complaint with regard to the submission of forged calibration certificate in respect of 2 tank-trucks attached with the petitionerfirm was received by the respondent through e-mail from one Jagdish Prasad on 08. 12. 2017. Thereafter, another complaint was received from one Durga Ram vide communication dated 14. 12. 2017 levelling similar allegations. It is submitted that on inquiry, the allegations levelled in those complaints were found true as the Weight and Measurement Department, in response to one RTI application preferred on behalf of the respondents, has informed vide letter dated 12. 12. 2017 that the calibration certificates in respect of 2 tank-trucks attached with the petitioner-firm are forged one. 16. It is submitted that on inquiry, the allegations levelled in those complaints were found true as the Weight and Measurement Department, in response to one RTI application preferred on behalf of the respondents, has informed vide letter dated 12. 12. 2017 that the calibration certificates in respect of 2 tank-trucks attached with the petitioner-firm are forged one. 16. It is further contended that as per the condition 20(h) of the General Terms and Conditions of Tender, it is within the domain of the respondent-Oil Company to take necessary action in case any information submitted by the tenderer is found to be incorrect at any time including the period of contract. 17. It is contended that in this case, even the contract was not awarded and only a Letter of Acceptance was issued and at this stage, when the respondent find that the calibration certificate submitted by the petitioner-firm along with tender in respect of 2 tank-trucks are forged one, the respondent has rightly cancelled the Letter of Acceptance. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that along with tender documents, the petitioner-firm submitted an undertaking to the effect that the details and all the informations furnished by the tenderer have been verified and found correct and if any information is found to be false and incorrect, the contract if awarded to the petitioner-firm shall be liable to be cancelled. 19. Learned counsel has urged that in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner-firm along with its tender, it is not open for the petitioner-firm to challenge the validity of the letter dated 02. 01. 2018 when admittedly the calibration certificate submitted by it along with tender documents in respect of 2 tanktrucks are found forged one. Learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore, argued that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents and there is no force in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 21. It is not in dispute that two calibration certificates submitted by the petitioner-firm along with the tender documents in respect of 2 tank-trucks attached with the petitioner-firm were found forged. As per the petitioner-firm also the said calibration certificates are forged one and therefore, they have informed about the same to the respondent-corporation. 22. 21. It is not in dispute that two calibration certificates submitted by the petitioner-firm along with the tender documents in respect of 2 tank-trucks attached with the petitioner-firm were found forged. As per the petitioner-firm also the said calibration certificates are forged one and therefore, they have informed about the same to the respondent-corporation. 22. In view of the above admitted facts, now the Court has to see whether there is any illegality in the action of the respondent-HPCL in cancelling the LoA dated 05. 12. 2017 in favour of the petitioner-firm. 23. As per clause 20(h) of the tender document, which is reproduced by the respondents in their reply and not disputed by the petitioner-firm, the Oil Company reserves all rights and remedies available if any information submitted by the tenderer is found to be incorrect. Clause 20(h) of the tender document reads as under: "20(h) If any of the information submitted by the tenderer is found to be incorrect at any time including the period of contract, Oil Company reserves all rights and remedies available. " 24. It is also to be noticed that along with tender form, the petitioner-firm submitted an undertaking, which is produced as Annexure-R/5 along with reply to the writ petition. Para No. 5 of the said undertaking reads as under: "We further confirm that the details as furnished by us have been verified and found correct. We undertake to place the Tank Trucks at the disposal of HPC in case the contract is awarded in our favour. If any information is found to be false and incorrect, the contract if awarded to us shall be liable to be cancelled and we shall be liable to pay to the Oil Company such damages/losses/ claims as the Oil Company may put to due to termination of the contract. We also undertake that should there be any action against Oil Company resulting in damages of whatsoever nature to Oil Company on account of award of contract in our favour on the basis of the misrepresentations, we shall keep the Oil Company completely indemnified against all the claims/ losses/ damages/ litigations/ court action etc. " 25. We also undertake that should there be any action against Oil Company resulting in damages of whatsoever nature to Oil Company on account of award of contract in our favour on the basis of the misrepresentations, we shall keep the Oil Company completely indemnified against all the claims/ losses/ damages/ litigations/ court action etc. " 25. From the above, it is clear that while submitting the tender document, the petitioner-firm submitted an undertaking to this effect that if any information supplied by it is found to be false, incorrect, the contract if awarded to it shall be liable to be cancelled. 26. It is true that the petitioner-firm informed the respondents about the forged calibration certificates on 13. 12. 2017 but this fact itself will not tilt the equity in favour of the petitioner because this fact remains that the petitioner-firm is bound by its undertaking submitted along with tender form. 27. Moreover, if such practice is allowed, then it can be very easy for anyone to manipulate the affairs and after obtaining the tender, on the basis of the forged documents, can offer withdrawal of the same or offer of substitution of the same with the genuine documents. It is also to be noticed that in the tender notice, it is specifically provided that no tender document/ e-mail shall be accepted after closing time and date and, therefore, also the respondent-HPCL cannot accept the offer of the petitioner-firm for replacing 2 tank-trucks, whose calibration certificates were found forged, with fresh tank-trucks. 28. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.