JUDGEMENT 1. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner is a firm engaged in transport business. It had applied for grant of transportation contract pursuant to ad hoc tender notice dated 3.2.2009, Annexure-1 issued by the Food Corporalion of India as it had similar work experience with Govemment/PSU/ reputed organization. The response of the petitioner submitted in terms of the tender notice, Annexure-1, however, was rejected and offer of private respondent no. 4 was accepted with reference to the work experience certificate issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Vodaforte Essar Spacetel Ltd. Respondent No. 5, which according to the Food Corporation of India is a reputed organization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails such grant of ad hoc contract to private Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the certificate issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 is not a genuine certificate issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd. Respondent No. 5 as also on the ground that Respondent No. 4 is not eligible for such grant in terms of ad hoc tender notice as it is not a firm engaged in transport business. 5. This Court having considered the submission aforesaid under order no. 2 dated 6.7.2009 issued notice to the Food Corporation of India. Respondent No. 3 as also to the awardee of the ad hoc contract, Respondent No. 4 and to M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 to confirm whether the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 was issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed their separate counter affidavits, which is on record. The authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 who issued the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 has also appeared in the matter on his own and has filed intervention application, which is also taken on record and it is submitted on behalf of the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 that his intervention application be treated as counter affidavit. 6. 6. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Food Corporation of India, Respondent No. 3, it appears that having received the complaint about the genuineness of the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4, the Area Manager of the Corporation took steps to confirm from M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 about the genuineness of the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 and in response to the request of the Area Manager, the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 under letter dated 13.4.2009, 14.4.2009 and 17.4.2009, Annexures-H, I and J to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 3 confirmed the issue of certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 and further clarified that Respondent no. 4 was engaged by M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 for the purposes of raising telephone towers and handled transportation of cement and other materials required for raising such towers. The awardee of the contract, Respondent No. 4 has also confirmed the said position that it was engaged by M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 for the purposes of raising telephone towers and in that connection they handled transportation of cement as also iron rod and other building materials. M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 has tiled separate counter affidavit in which they disowned issue of certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4, as according to them the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 who issued such certificate was under their employment earlier, but he appears to have misused the letter head of the company for issue of such certificate. The authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5, who has appeared suo motu in these proceedings and has filed intervention application with request to treat the same as counter affidavit, however, has a different story to tell. He states that when he issued certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure 4, he was very much in the employment of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 and had issued said certificate from Patna Office of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 on instruction received from commercial head of Patna Office. 7. He states that when he issued certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure 4, he was very much in the employment of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 and had issued said certificate from Patna Office of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 on instruction received from commercial head of Patna Office. 7. Counsel for the petitioner in response to the aforesaid submission, submitted that such instruction of the commercial head is not on record and this Court should not rely on the bald Statement of the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 and proceed with the matter on the basis that the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 has been disowned by M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5. He has further submitted that in any case experience earned on the basis of a certificate which is not owned by Principal, namely, M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 should not be considered while awarding the carriage contract in future. 8. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Food Corporation of India which is a Government of India organization should have been more specific about the contents of the tender notice as there appears to be some confusion in appreciating the words transporters/firms and firm of transporters were only eligible to apply in terms of the ad hoc tender notice. Such confusion, according to this Court does not appear in view of the contents of the ad hoc tender notice, as in terms of the tender notice, transporters as also firms having similar work experience could have applied and Respondent No. 4 may not be a transporting firm, but having transporting experience as firm engaged in raising telephone towers, handled carriage of cement and other building materials was qualified to apply on the basis of certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4; the genuineness of the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexun 4 being in dispute Food Corporation of India, Respondent No. 3 a Public Sector Undertaking, in my opinion, should have verified the correctness from the Principal and not from the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5. When such finding was recorded, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India as also Respondent No. 4 submitted that the genuineness or otherwise of the certificate dated 17.4.2009, Annexure-4 was verified not from the Patna office of M/s vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent Wo. 5. but from its office at Delhi and Ahmedabad. This Court is not aware about the location of the registered office of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 but in the opinion of this Court necessary verification ought to have been sought from the registered office of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5 and not from the Patna Office. It does not appear from the confirmation letter dated 13.4.2009, 14.4.2009 and 17.4.2009, Annexures-H, I and J to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that those letters were issued from the registered office of M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5. Close perusal of the three letters further indicates that the letters dated 13.4.2009 and 17.4.2009, Annexures-H and J have been issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. and not M/s Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., Respondent No. 5. In the circumstances, before acting in terms of the confirmation letter, Food Corporation of India was required to be more cautious. The ad hoc contract awarded to Respondent No. 4 for the procurement season is scheduled to end in October, 2009, in appreciation of such fact, I am not proceeding any further in the matter, but would observe that hereafter Food Corporation of India, Respondent No. 3, the Government of India Undertaking should be more cautions in formulating the terms of the tender notice as also in verification of the document/certificate. 9. In the light of my findings aforesaid, this writ application is disposed of.