JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ/order or directions:- i) the order dated 13.10.2022 (Annex.-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to award the work contract and execute the agreement with the petitioner firm for the project works. iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from awarding the work order and execution of agreement in favor of any other tenderer. iv) That if during pendency of writ petition, the work order is issued and agreement is executed in favor of other tenderer, the same may be called upon and be quashed and set aside. v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner firm.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that respondent-RIICO invited online unconditional bids on 14.09.2022 through e-procurement portal for the works, namely, (i) Survey, Outer Boundary Demarcation, Plot Demarcation and Road & CD Works at Industrial Area Kerwa, Jaisalmer and; (ii) Survey, Outer Boundary Demarcation, Plot Demarcation and Road & CD Works at Industrial Area Bhaniyana, Jaisalmer; the bids in question were called in two parts and the estimated procurement costs for the Project Work-I and Project Work-II, were fixed as Rs.297 Lacs and Rs. 287 Lacs, respectively. 2.1. The petitioner-Firm is enlisted as “A Class” Contractor and submitted the applications for the tender in question. After opening of the bids, the technical bid of the petitioner-Firm was accepted and the financial bids were opened on 28.09.2022; the petitioner-Firm was declared as L1 for the both aforementioned works in question. 2.2. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter dated 04.10.2022 to the petitioner-Firm, stating therein that the petitioner-Firm has concealed the information regarding the pending work orders, while submitting the technical bid in relation to the aforementioned works in question; the petitioner-Firm was called upon to submit the necessary clarification for the aforesaid concealed information; the petitioner-Firm submitted its reply to the said communication on 07.10.2022. 2.3. 2.3. Subsequently, the petitioner-Firm received an order dated 13.10.2022 (through E-mail dated 14.10.2022), whereby its tender bid application has been rejected for the aforementioned works; the same was done alongwith imposition of a penalty to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, while blacklisting the petitioner-Firm for a period of six months. The respondents thereafter, issued a fresh advertisement dated 19.10.2022 inviting the tender bid applications for various project works, including the works in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed by the respondent alleging breach of integrity as per Section 11 sub sections (2) & (3) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2012’), which provides for imposition of penalty and blacklisting of the concerned Firm, only if there is any omission/misrepresentation in submitting the information to mislead to obtain financial or other benefits; but the respondent has not recorded as such findings in the impugned order; therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner-Firm by the respondent before passing of the impugned order; thus, on that count alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT OF DELHI) & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105 and; Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 107 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RIICO, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Firm, submitted that this petition is not maintainable on the sole count of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012. 4.1 In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd AIR 2020 SC 2819 and; The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021, decided on 03.09.2021). 4.2. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd AIR 2020 SC 2819 and; The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021, decided on 03.09.2021). 4.2. Learned counsel thereafter, submitted that the petitioner-Firm has not disclosed before this Hon’ble Court, the material fact that the petitioner-Firm vide its letters dated 18.10.2022 and 01.11.2022, has not only accepted the impugned order dated 13.10.2022, but also waived its right to assail the validity and propriety of the said order, by accepting the earnest money deposited towards the tender. 4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-Firm, on one hand, accepted the earnest money after deduction of the penalty, while on the other hand, it has challenged the impugned order, and thus, on that count also, the present petition deserves dismissal. 4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that Condition No. 3 of the tender in question was in relation to the eligibility and qualification requirements; Clause 3.2 of the aforesaid condition deals with Minimum Criteria for Qualification; sub-clause (h) whereof deals with Bid Capacity; the same clearly provided a formula that all certificates should be countersigned by Engineer-in-Charge, not below the rank of Executive Engineer, but in the present case, the petitioner-Firm has deliberately did not give proper information, so as to secure the status of the successful bidder. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent-RIICO invited the tender bid applications for the project works in question, pursuant whereto the petitioner-Firm submitted its application for the works in question; thereafter, the technical bid of the petitioner was accepted and financial bids were opened on 28.09.2022. The respondent on 04.10.2022 issued a letter to the petitioner-Firm seeking explanation regarding the concealed information in relation to the pending works orders, which was replied by the petitioner-Firm. 6.1. Subsequently, the respondent vide impugned order dated 13.10.2022, rejected the tender bid application of the petitioner, as mentioned above. 7. This Court further observes that the aforementioned Condition No. 3, Clause 3.2 Sub Clause (h) clearly provides, amongst others, for the disqualification, in case any misleading or false information is furnished by the concerned bidder in the forms, statement and attachments, submitted in proof of the qualifying requirements. 7. This Court further observes that the aforementioned Condition No. 3, Clause 3.2 Sub Clause (h) clearly provides, amongst others, for the disqualification, in case any misleading or false information is furnished by the concerned bidder in the forms, statement and attachments, submitted in proof of the qualifying requirements. Relevant portion of the Condition of the Clause 3.2 sub-clause (h), as reproduced in the reply to the writ petition, reads as under: “(h) Bid Capacity (I) Bidders who meet the minimum qualifying criteria are to be evaluated further for bid capacity as under: (i) Bid capacity = A x N x 2-B N = No. of years prescribed for completion of work of the package (0.5 years for this package) A = Maximum value of Civil engineering & Electrical works executed in any one year during the last five financial years (updated to the current 2021-22 price level) which will take into account the completed and ongoing works. B = Value of existing commitments, work (complete or partial) (all certificates should be countersigned by Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Execute Engineer). No contract will be awarded to bidder lacking the financial and technical resources to undertake the work. Note : Even though the bidders meet the above qualification criteria, they are subjected to be disqualified if they have Made misleading or false representation in the forms, statement & attachments submitted in proof of the qualifying requirements; and or Record of poor performance such as abandoning the works not properly completing the contract, inordinate delay in completion, litigation history or financial failure etc. The right to or not to qualify any or all the bidders without assigning any reasons is reserved with RIICO Ltd.” 7.1. In the present case, this Court arrives at the satisfaction that the petitioner-Firm did not give the material information regarding pending work orders, thereby violated the conditions of the tender in question. 8. This Court also observes that the petitioner-Firm vide its letter dated 18.10.2022 itself made a request for refund of the earnest money; however, on the other hand, the petitioner-Firm has preferred this writ petition, challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent, which, as per the settled proposition of law, cannot be done simultaneously. 9. 8. This Court also observes that the petitioner-Firm vide its letter dated 18.10.2022 itself made a request for refund of the earnest money; however, on the other hand, the petitioner-Firm has preferred this writ petition, challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent, which, as per the settled proposition of law, cannot be done simultaneously. 9. This Court further observes that Section 11 Sub Section (2) Clause (ii) of the Act of 2012 clearly states that, “any omission, including a misrepresentation that misleads or attempts to mislead so as to obtain a financial or other benefit or avoid an obligation”, falls under the code of integrity referred to in subsection (1), which provides that, “No officer or employee of a procuring entity or a person participating in a procurement process shall act in contravention of the code of integrity prescribed by the State Government”. 9.1. In the present case, the petitioner-Firm did not provide the proper and complete information, which resulted into passing of the impugned order by the respondent. 10. The judgments on behalf of the petitioner-Firm also do not render any assistance to its case. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.