JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the action of opposite parties in not registering his name as approved supplier and further in not supplying tender papers to him for participating in the tender process for supply of principal food grains and other miscellaneous articles including vegetables, meat, milk, eggs etc. to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the year 2013-14. Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that the Additional D.G.P.-cum-Inspector General of Prisons & D.C.S., Odisha issued Short Tender Call Notice published in "The Samaja" dated 21.10.2012 inviting applications in plain papers from intending suppliers/firms/co-operative societies/contractors/corporations, who are registered dealers under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and have valid VAT clearance to register their names as approved suppliers for supply of principal food grains and other miscellaneous articles including vegetables, meat, milk, eggs etc. as per approved schedule of articles to different Jails of Odisha during the year 2013-14 to be received by the Superintendents of the concerned jails relating to the institutions upto 5.00 P.M. of 20.12.2012. As per the stipulations in the said Short Tender Call Notice, the applicants should state in their applications about their financial capacity, past experience, if any, for consideration of their cases for registration as approved suppliers. The document in support of financial capacity will mean Solvency Certificate issued by a competent Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahasildar with different ceilings for different jails. Xerox copies of the documents are required to be attested by a Gazetted Officer in support of their financial capacity and past experience together with up-to-date PAN Card and VAT clearance Certificate in Form VAT - 612 with TIN or SRIN. As per the aforesaid Short Tender Call Notice (Annexure-1), after registration with the Superintendent of the concerned Jails and Sub-Jails, tender papers are to be supplied to those approved suppliers for the purpose of quoting their rates and submitting sealed tender papers directly to the Superintendents on or before 5.00 P.M. of 19.01.2013. The petitioner is an existing supplier of dietary articles to the Circle Jail, Choudwar for a considerable length of time. The petitioner is an existing supplier of dietary articles to the Circle Jail, Choudwar for a considerable length of time. On the basis of the aforesaid short Tender Call Notice, the petitioner had submitted his application in plain paper on 18.12.2012 along with all required documents before opposite party No. 2-Superintendent, Special Jail, Bhubaneswar, Khurda for the purpose of registering his name as approved supplier for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the current year 2013-14. The petitioner appeared before opposite party No. 2 on 02.01.2013 along with all the original documents filed with his application and opposite party No. 2 verified all the originals. During verification of all the documents certain discrepancies with reference to personal address, name of parents indicated in the PAN Card, Solvency Certificate and VAT clearance Certificate of the petitioner were pointed out which the petitioner reconciled. On being satisfied, opposite party No. 2 informed him that in due course his name would be registered as approved supplier and he would be supplied with tender papers for participating in the tender process for the year 2013-14 like other applicants. Subsequently on 03.01.2013, the petitioner could ascertain that opposite party No. 2 registered the names of other applicants and his name has not been registered. To ascertain the correctness of such information, the petitioner has submitted an application under RTI Act on 03.01.2013 seeking information from opposite party No. 2 as to whether or not his name is registered as approved supplier for the year 2013-14 for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar and if not registered, then to furnish the reason for not registering his name as approved supplier. Being aggrieved by non-registration of his name as approved supplier and non-supply of tender papers to him, the petitioner on 10.01.2013 has submitted a detailed representation to opposite party No. 1 highlighting his grievances that he has been deprived of participating in the tender process for the year 2013-14. Since the last date of submission of tender paper was fixed to 5.00 PM of 19.01.2013 and since there was no response to the request of the petitioner by 12.01.2013, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. Mr. Since the last date of submission of tender paper was fixed to 5.00 PM of 19.01.2013 and since there was no response to the request of the petitioner by 12.01.2013, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated vis-a-vis other applicants in the matter of non-registration of his name as approved supplier for the purpose of participation in the tender process for supply of dietary articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the year 2013-14. The documents submitted by the petitioner are genuine and those documents have been accepted by the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar even during the current year 2013-14. The discrepancies pointed out in the documents having been explained and reconciled to opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 2 should not have refused to register the name of the petitioner as approved supplier for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner apprehended the commission of foul play by opposite party No. 2 to the extent that there has been deliberate attempt to deprive the petitioner of participating in the tender process in question. Such denial of participation to the petitioner amounts to deprivation of his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Opposite party No. 2 is bent upon to oust the petitioner from arena of supply of food materials to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar in order to show undue favour to persons of his choice. Petitioner's application to register him as approved supplier has been rejected in violation of principles of natural justice. Concluding his argument Mr. Tripathy made a prayer to allow the writ petition. 3. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties submitted that after verification of all the original documents various discrepancies were noticed as mentioned in the counter affidavit. Referring to various contentions taken in the counter affidavit, Mr. Senapati prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether defects/reasons pointed out/assigned by opposite parties for not registering the name of the petitioner as approved supplier and consequentially in not supplying the tender papers to the petitioner to participate in the tender process are valid and sustainable in law? 5. 4. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether defects/reasons pointed out/assigned by opposite parties for not registering the name of the petitioner as approved supplier and consequentially in not supplying the tender papers to the petitioner to participate in the tender process are valid and sustainable in law? 5. The allegations on the basis of which petitioner's application to register his name as approved supplier has been rejected and consequentially no tender paper was supplied to him to participate in the tender process as stated in the counter affidavit are as follows: (i) In the PAN Card bearing No. ACMPM-73591 (sic) his surname is "Mohanty" but the surname of his father is "Sahoo". There is no supporting documents regarding change of his surname. (ii) In the TIN No. 2101205592 (sic) his address is "Jhanjirimangala, Cuttack". But the address given in the Solvency Certificate is Charuprava, Kanhu Mohanty Lane, PS-Purighat, Dist: Cuttack which differs from each other and created doubts. (iii) The Encumbrance Certificate belongs to Charuprava Sahoo @ Mohanty. There is no supporting documents that the applicant as the successor of the property or any non-claimant certificate from any person or any legal hair certificate from the Competent Authority. (iv) He has obtained and submitted the Solvency Certificate in his name showing the E.C. No. 03912005980 of 2012 which belongs to Charuprava Sahoo @ Mohanty which creates doubts. Observing all the above defects in the documents his name was not taken into consideration and Tender Paper was not issued to him. It is further stated here that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is engaged as the Power of Attorney Holder of his wife Chapala Mohanty, the running supplier of the jail for the year 2012-13. He has created immense problems in supplying the most essential commodities. He neither comes to the jail Gate to receive the store orders nor supply the required articles for which a letter No. 5031 dtd. 7.12.2012 addressed to his wife Chapala Mohanty was issued asking therein to submit the explanation on the basis of terms and conditions of the Agreement Bond. When no reply was received in the office of this deponent, another reminder bearing No. 5157 dated 16.12.2012 was issued. But no reply was received for which second reminder bearing No. 71 dtd. 5.1.2013 was issued. When no reply was received in the office of this deponent, another reminder bearing No. 5157 dated 16.12.2012 was issued. But no reply was received for which second reminder bearing No. 71 dtd. 5.1.2013 was issued. On receipt of the third letter she submitted one reply stating therein that she has not received the 1st letter and reminder even though the said letters were sent to her in the address given, which created doubts on their reliability and considered them (supplier and Power of Attorney Holder) defaulter. Most important point is that he has categorically and admittedly mentioned in the writ petition at para 5 that he has been supplying dietary articles to Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar as approved Contractor basing on the same set of documents. So, it is an admitted fact that Sri Mohanty (Petitioner) is running his business at Circle Jail, Choudwar as a supply Contractor and at Special Jail, Bhubaneswar as Power of Attorney Holder of her wife Chapala Mohanty, which is admittedly difficult on the part of a single person to run the business in two places where the distance is more than 50 KMs. Further, it is respectfully stated here that the petitioner being the diet supplier of Choudwar Jail is also otherwise not eligible to become the supplier for another Jail which is at a long distance and also not permissible as per the Tender Call Notice. Further, he has mentioned in the writ petition that the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar has issued tender papers to him for the year 2013-14 (not for the year 2012-13) vide office Memo No. 97 dtd. 4.1.2013 basing on the same set of documents. Again he has reiterated that his application for registration of his name as approved supplier for the year 2013-14 has been accepted by the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Choudwar. It is brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that in the contents of the "Tender Call Notice" Para-1 it has been clearly mentioned that "The applicant should be allowed to supply materials having required Solvency Certificate to one Circle Jail/Dist. Jail/Special Sub-Jail and Sub Jail" which speaks well that, one can apply for registration of his name as approved supplier for one Jail only on the strength of a particular Solvency Certificate. Copy of the tender Cal Notice is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. Jail/Special Sub-Jail and Sub Jail" which speaks well that, one can apply for registration of his name as approved supplier for one Jail only on the strength of a particular Solvency Certificate. Copy of the tender Cal Notice is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. It is stated here that the petitioner has specifically mentioned in the writ petition that he has submitted the "same set" of documents to the Circle Jail, Choudwar and Special Jail, Bhubaneswar, which is not admissible as per norms and terms of the Tender Call Notice and also not practicable as per standing norms and terms of the Agreement Bond, where in it is clearly mentioned that, the supplier will attend the Jail Gate at early morning to receive the Store Orders daily and supply the required dietary and other misc. articles then and there for preparation of the daily diet of the inmates. Copy of the agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure-B/2. As such adhering to the condition specified in the Tender Call Notice as well as in the Agreement Bonds, the prayer of the petitioner for registration of his name as approved supplier and issue of Tender paper to him is not acceptable. 6. Now we have to examine as to whether the defects/reasons pointed out/assigned by the opposite parties for not registering the name of the petitioner as approved supplier and consequently in not supplying tender papers to him to participate in the tender process are valid and sustainable in law? 7. Defect No.(i) is with regard to non-matching of the petitioner's surname with the surname of his father. The allegation is that in the PAN Card, surname of the petitioner is "Mohanty" but the surname of his father is "Sahu" and there is no supporting document regarding change of his surname. The stand of the petitioner is that in course of verification of documents on 02.01.2013 it was explained that the surname of the petitioner has been all along accepted and acted upon as "Mohanty" from his childhood in all his School, College and all official documents. The petitioner has also furnished copy of his matriculation certificate showing his name as Deepak Kumar Mohanty, S/o. Bansidhar Sahu. It is further clarified to opposite party No. 2 that he is an existing contractor of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar on the basis of such PAN Card, VAT Clearance Certificate and all other statutory documents. The petitioner has also furnished copy of his matriculation certificate showing his name as Deepak Kumar Mohanty, S/o. Bansidhar Sahu. It is further clarified to opposite party No. 2 that he is an existing contractor of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar on the basis of such PAN Card, VAT Clearance Certificate and all other statutory documents. There is no denial to the above statement of the petitioner. Therefore, defect no.(i) is not sustainable in law. 8. Defect No.(ii) is that the address given in TIN No. 2101205592 and the address given in the Solvency Certificate do not tally with each other. Therefore, doubt casts in the mind of opposite parties. The petitioner's specific case is that "Kanhu Mohanty Lane" is located at Jhanjirimangala, P.S. Purighat, which fact has not been denied by opposite parties. TIN has been issued by the Sales Tax Authorities and the Solvency Certificate by the Revenue Authorities. Unless the certificates issued are cancelled by the issuing authorities, the same should be considered as genuine certificates. Further, opp. party no. 2 has not conducted any enquiry to find out whether the TIN and Solvency Certificate are genuine or not. Otherwise also, opposite parties are not competent authorities to examine the correctness of the certificates issued by the Sales Tax Authorities or Revenue Authorities. Therefore, there is no reason for opposite parties to doubt the genuineness of TIN and Solvency Certificate. 9. So far defect No.(iii) is concerned, the EC has been issued by the Revenue Officer upon verification. Therefore, the EC cannot be said to be defective. Opposite party No. 2 is not the competent authority to question the genuineness of EC issued by competent authority. Moreover, no enquiry has been conducted by opp. parties to find out whether the Solvency Certificate is genuine or not. 10. So far defect No.(iv) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Solvency Certificate has been issued in the name of the petitioner by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Collector, Sadar Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 234/2012 and opposite parties are not competent authorities to call in question the genuineness of the said certificate. 11. 10. So far defect No.(iv) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Solvency Certificate has been issued in the name of the petitioner by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Collector, Sadar Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 234/2012 and opposite parties are not competent authorities to call in question the genuineness of the said certificate. 11. It is also pertinent to note that if any doubt arose in the mind of opposite party No. 2 regarding genuineness of the certificate issued by the Government Authorities, then opposite party No. 2 should have caused an inquiry from the office of the concerned competent authorities, those who have issued certificates namely, PAN Card, TIN Number, Encumbrance Certificate and Solvency Certificate. Without doing so, opposite party No. 2 should not have unilaterally rejected the application of the petitioner to be registered as approved supplier under suspicion/doubt that those certificates may not be genuine. 12. Thus, all the above four defects on the basis of which opposite parties have not registered the name of the petitioner as approved supplier and consequentially not supplying the tender papers to him to participate in the tender process are not legally sustainable. 13. The allegation of opposite parties is that the petitioner as Power of Attorney Holder of his wife Chapala Mohanty was a supplier of dietary articles to the jail for the year 2012-13, who created immense problems in supplying such essential commodities. Further allegation is that the petitioner who was Power of Attorney Holder of his wife neither comes to the jail gate to receive the store orders nor supplies the required articles for which a show cause notice was issued to Chapala Mohanty. It is not disputed by opp. parties that the wife of the petitioner was an approved supplier in Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the last 10 years and during those ten years there was no such allegation. Moreover, the Government Advocate has not brought to our notice if any action has been taken against the wife of the petitioner for the alleged irregularities in supplying dietaries articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar by the Power of Attorney Holder. Normally in such cases, the contractee takes steps to blacklist the contractor by following due process of law. In the present case, no such step has been taken as admitted by learned Govt. Advocate. Normally in such cases, the contractee takes steps to blacklist the contractor by following due process of law. In the present case, no such step has been taken as admitted by learned Govt. Advocate. Further, as it appears, such allegations are raised in the midst of the tender process for the year 2013-14. Thus such allegation is not founded on any basis. 14. It was submitted by the petitioner that under R.T.I. Act various information were sought for from which inter alia it reveals that letter No. 5031 dated 7.12.2012 was issued by Speed Post on 10.12.2012 in an incorrect address with incorrect PIN Code. So far letter No. 5157 dated 16.12.2012 is concerned, Discharge Register reveals that endorsement of such letters and subsequent Memos were inserted by a different person other than the person maintaining the Discharge Register and there is no indication about the mode of communication. It was further stated that bare perusal of the note sheets dated 5.12.2012 and 16.12.2012 read with Discharge Register it would be crystal clear that the records have been manipulated by opp. party no. 2 just to oust the petitioner from the tender process in question. Perusal of the entire 170 pages of the information obtained through R.T.I. would further indicate that neither the name of the petitioner nor the names of any other approved suppliers have been recorded in the Gate articles. Thus, the names of the approved suppliers have never been mentioned in the said Register and the allegation made against the petitioner is absolutely false. The allegation that information was given to him over telephone is absolutely false and fabricated. Petitioner's further case is that there is no stipulation in the tender call notice that one intending applicant will be allowed to register her/his name for one zone only. It is a matter of record that those suppliers, namely; Sri Subhadarshini Supply Agency, M/s. Sk. Jamal, Bhujangaraj Biswal, who have been approved as suppliers for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar have also been permitted to register their names at Circle Jails, Choudwar, Koraput, Bherhampur, Baripada and Sambalpur. Also in the cases of Gagan Behari Sahu and Nitya Kishore Das, who, for last so many years up to the current year, have been permitted to register their names in different Jails, no such restriction was ever put. Also in the cases of Gagan Behari Sahu and Nitya Kishore Das, who, for last so many years up to the current year, have been permitted to register their names in different Jails, no such restriction was ever put. As a matter of fact, the requirement is that for each Jail separate Solvency Certificate is to be furnished by each of the approved suppliers. So far as the case of the wife of the petitioner is concerned, she has been an approved supplier for Circle Jail, Cuttack and Special Jail, Bhubaneswar with separate Solvency Certificates. Therefore, allegations are concocted only to frustrate the writ petition. It was further submitted that there has been a concerted effort on the part of opp. party no. 2 only to discriminate the petitioner for the year 2013-14. All the above stands taken by the petitioner have not been denied by the opp. parties. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no valid and cogent reason has been assigned by opposite parties for not registering the name of the petitioner as Approved Supplier and consequently not supplying the tender paper to the petitioner to participate in the tender process. 16. For the reasons stated above, we direct the opposite parties to register the name of the petitioner as Approved Supplier and allow him to participate in the tender process for supply of dietary articles to the Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the year 2013-14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. I. Mahanty, J. I agree