Suppression of material facts barred equitable relief against bank guarantee invocation, where no final debarment order existed.

Suppression of material facts and lack of candour can defeat equitable relief where a petitioner withholds the allegation that VAT clearance certificates were forged and later offers an explanation inconsistent with an earlier affidavit asserting their genuineness. The Court also noted that no final debarment order had been passed under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012; only a communication to the bank for invocation of bid security had been issued after the certificates were found forged. In commercial matters, interference with invocation of a bank guarantee is ordinarily not warranted. Relief was therefore refused and the challenge to invocation of the guarantee failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and whether interference with the invocation of the bank guarantee was warranted; whether any enforceable decision to debar the petitioner had been taken without hearing under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012.

Analysis: The petitioner did not disclose the material circumstance that the respondents had proceeded on the basis of forged VAT clearance certificates, and the later explanation that the certificates were obtained by an advocate was found unacceptable in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner asserting their genuineness. The Court held that the petition lacked candour and that the petitioner had not come with clean hands. It also found that no final decision had been taken to debar the petitioner; only a communication had been issued to the bank for invocation of the bid security after the certificates were found to be forged. In such commercial matters, interference against invocation of a bank guarantee is not ordinarily warranted.

Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the challenge to the bank guarantee invocation failed. The ancillary stay and pending applications also stood dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Relief was refused because the petitioner's case was vitiated by suppression of material facts and no actionable debarment order had been shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who suppresses material facts and does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled to equitable relief against invocation of a bank guarantee, particularly where no final adverse debarment order has been passed.

---