ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The respondent No. 4 issued a Percentage Rate Basis Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) inviting bids for construction of Mangla Bhainsajhar Road to Dindayal Colony Lokhandi Railway Phatak two lane road, length of which is 3.52 km. The estimated cost was valued at Rs.517.12 lacs. 3. The petitioner, which is a registered 'A' category contractor, participated in the aforesaid NIT along with others. Bid was opened on 17.11.2021 and on such opening, the petitioner emerged as the 'L-1' bidder. The respondent No. 2 issued an order of approval for issuance of Letter of Acceptance (LoA) on 03.12.2021 to the respondent No. 4. 4. The cause of action for approaching this Court by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had arisen in view of the letter dated 30.12.2021 issued by the respondent No. 4, wherein it was stated that the petitioner's bid, which is 20% below the estimated rate, was accepted by a letter dated 07.12.2021, but as the petitioner had failed to execute the agreement on or before the scheduled date i.e. 23.12.2021, in terms of Clause 8.1.1 of the NIT, the tender has been cancelled and the security money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited. 5. Clause 8.1.1 of the NIT provides that the tenderer whose tender has been accepted shall produce an appropriate solvency certificate, if so required by the Executive Engineer and will execute the agreement in the prescribed form, within a fortnight of the date of communication of the acceptance of his tender by the department. It is also stipulated therein that failure to do so would result in the earnest money being forfeited to the Government of Chhattisgarh and tender being cancelled. 6. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had intimated to the office of the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 08.12.2021 that office address of the petitioner had been changed. The letter dated 07.12.2021, which was stated to have been issued to the petitioner, was returned back with the endorsement "change of address". 6. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had intimated to the office of the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 08.12.2021 that office address of the petitioner had been changed. The letter dated 07.12.2021, which was stated to have been issued to the petitioner, was returned back with the endorsement "change of address". The said letter was dispatched on 09.12.2021 and later on, the letter dated 07.12.2021 was again sent to the correct address of the petitioner on 20.12.2021, which the petitioner received on 27.12.2021. It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that apart from executing the agreement, the petitioner was also, in view of letter dated 07.12.2021, required to deposit additional security amount of Rs. 51,71,200/- in the form of bank Guarantee and 5 years performance guarantee before execution of the agreement. Another letter dated 24.12.2021 informing the petitioner that he had not taken the requisite steps for execution of the contract agreement was also received on 27.12.2021. Accordingly, he seeks to contend that prior to 27.12.2021, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that LoA was issued in his favour and that as a result thereof, he is to execute the agreement in terms of Clause 8.1.1 within a fortnight. After receipt of the letter on 27.12.2021, the petitioner had started taking requisite steps and the petitioner also received another letter dated 27.12.2021, which was dispatched on 31.12.2021, on 01.01.2022, by which the petitioner was asked to take immediate action for execution of the agreement. It is in the light of the above, he submits that when opportunity was granted to the petitioner to execute the agreement, though period of 15 days from letter dated 07.12.2021 had elapsed, issuance of letter dated 30.12.2021 is arbitrary and unreasonable and it reflects total non-application of mind. 7. Abiding by the stand taken in the reply-affidavit, Mr. Pradhan has submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware of LoA being issued till 27.12.2021 is an utterly false plea taken for the purpose of this case. He submits that apart from letters on which Mr. Paranjpe has placed reliance, the partner of petitioner firm, namely, Atul Shukla, was intimated about acceptance of the bid as also the requirement of depositing additional performance security on 08.12.2021 through Whatsapp, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit. He submits that apart from letters on which Mr. Paranjpe has placed reliance, the partner of petitioner firm, namely, Atul Shukla, was intimated about acceptance of the bid as also the requirement of depositing additional performance security on 08.12.2021 through Whatsapp, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit. It is submitted that the purported change of address of the head office of the petitioner is also a futile ploy of the petitioner to bargain for more time and the address in the writ petition of Atul Shukla would go to show that his residential address has not changed. 8. Drawing attention of the Court to the Whatsapp messages, Mr. Pradhan submits that it is manifest that Atul Shukla, partner of the petitioner firm, had read the messages and thereafter, he had issued a letter dated 08.12.2021, which was submitted to the office of the respondent No. 4 on 13.12.2021, intimating change of office address. When the petitioner had knowledge about the acceptance of his tender and the requirement of submission of additional performance security on 08.12.2021 itself, plea taken by the petitioner that he received the letter dated 07.12.2021 on 27.12.2021 is of no consequence. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the reply of respondents No.1 to 3, it is stated as follows: "3. That, the undisputed facts of the case is that, the tender was invited for the Construction of Road from Mangla-Bhainsajhaar to Deendayal Colony and in which the petitioner firm participated and his bid was accepted as L-1 on 07.12.2021. Further, it is undisputed that clause 8.1.1 of the NIT talks about the Agreement which says that it is duty of the contractor to produce the appropriate solvency certificate as required by the Executive Engineer within fortnight of the date of communication of the acceptance of his tender by the department. It is also categorically stated in the above clause that failure to deposit the performance security will result in forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of tender. Copy of the acceptance of the bid dated 07.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. 4. It is also categorically stated in the above clause that failure to deposit the performance security will result in forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of tender. Copy of the acceptance of the bid dated 07.12.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. 4. It is further respectfully submitted that on 08.12.2021, immediately after acceptance of the bid, the then Executive Engineer, Public Works Department namely, Mahadev Lahre have communicated the petitioner i.e. Atul Shukla through Whatsapp, intimating him about acceptance of his bid and along with this intimation, has also communicated a message to deposit the additional performance security in form of Bank Guarantee. Furthermore, along with these two messages, the then Executive Engineer has also annexed the copy of the acceptance letter to his Whatsapp Chat. Copy of the same is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-2 substantiating the same. It is respectfully submitted here that the same message has been read by the contractor namely, Atul Shukla who is the petitioner herein and have acknowledged the same, as apparent from the blue tick in the chat of respective contractor. It is further respectfully submitted that, the then Executive Engineer has also communicated telephonically to the petitioner about the acceptance of his bid and has told him to comply with the conditions of clause 8.1.1 and to deposit the performance security acknowledging the same, it was told by the petitioner that, he was in Delhi and he would send one of the staff of his concern to the office of respondent authorities for complying the same, but till date of the passing of the impugned order, no such condition as stipulated under clause 8.1.1 has been complied with. 5. It is further respectfully submitted that, apart from the above chats, the then Executive Engineer has also sent a message through whatsapp prior to 24.12.2021, asking to the petitioner to come to Division Office with APS which was also acknowledged by him. 5. It is further respectfully submitted that, apart from the above chats, the then Executive Engineer has also sent a message through whatsapp prior to 24.12.2021, asking to the petitioner to come to Division Office with APS which was also acknowledged by him. Further, on 24.12.2021 also, a communication was made to the petitioner through Whatsapp which was also acknowledged by him and on 28.12.2021 also the communication was made through Whatsapp which was also acknowledged by him and along with these messages, it was categorically stated by the then Executive Engineer to come to Division Office with APS for complying with the necessary tender conditions, but petitioner suppressing all these material facts has pleaded otherwise in his petition and has made a categorical statement that he has never received the acceptance letter dated 07.12.2021 prior to 27.12.2021. The copy of all the whatsappp chats showing the delivery of message and the acknowledgment of the petitioner is hereby annexed as Annexure R-3. 6. Apart from what has been stated above, it is further respectfully submitted that respondent authorities have also communicated copy of the acceptance letter on 07.12.2021 through speed post which was sent on 09.12.2021 as 08.12.2021 was holiday and the speed post acknowledgment receipt number is RC 248687323IN, however, which was received back to the department on 10.12.2021. Copy of the same acknowledgment of sending the document as well as receiving back the document is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-4. 7. It is respectfully submitted here that when the NIT was submitted, the petitioner has given the address in his bid as Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, Dist. Bilaspur. However, on 13.12.2021 after five days of communication of acceptance letter through Whatsapp, petitioner has made an attempt and has tried to purchase the time by sending a letter on 13.12.2021 (by writing a back date 08.12.2021) by sending it physically through one of his staff saying therein that, his new address is Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Manjhawapara, Main Road, Dist. Bilaspur. The copy of the inward outward register showing the receipt of letter dated 08.12.2021 on 13.12.2021 by physical mode is being annexed as Annexure R-5." 11. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner did not deny communication made through Whatsapp or telephone. Bilaspur. The copy of the inward outward register showing the receipt of letter dated 08.12.2021 on 13.12.2021 by physical mode is being annexed as Annexure R-5." 11. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner did not deny communication made through Whatsapp or telephone. All that is said is that if the Whatsapp message was sent, there was no occasion for issuance of letters dated 07.12.2021, 20.12.2021, 24.12.2021 and 27.12.20221 and that no mode of communication through Whatsapp has been provided in the NIT. 12. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is more or less an admitted fact that acceptance of bid and requirement of deposit of additional performance security was communicated to the petitioner through Whatsapp on 08.12.2021 itself. 13. It is not the case presented by the petitioner in the writ petition that despite having knowledge of acceptance of his bid through Whatsapp on 08.12.2021, he did not take further steps as he was waiting for a written communication. 14. It is well-settled that if a petitioner suppresses material facts, the Court may dismiss the petition on that ground without adjudicating the same. The petitioner has withheld a very material fact while filing the present writ petition. Very foundation of writ jurisdiction rests in candid disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. 15. In these circumstances, when admittedly the petitioner did not comply with requirement of Clause 8.1.1 of the NIT within a fortnight of communication of acceptance of bid, the impugned decision taken by the authority cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or malafide or that in the given facts of the case, the decision is such which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. 16. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting relief to the petitioner as prayed for. 17. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.