JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the action of opposite parties in not registering her name as approved supplier and further in not supplying tender papers to her 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 Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and have valid VAT clearance to register their names as approved supplier 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 application 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 the 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 more than 15 years and Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for a period of more than 10 years. The petitioner is an existing supplier of dietary articles to the Circle Jail, Choudwar for more than 15 years and Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for a period of more than 10 years. On the basis of the aforesaid short Tender Call Notice, the petitioner had submitted her 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 her 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 her applications and opposite party No. 2 verified all the originals. On being satisfied, opposite party No. 2 informed her that in due course her name would be registered as approved supplier and she would be supplied with tender papers for participating in the tender process for the year 2013-14 like other applicants. Subsequently on 09.01.2013, the petitioner could ascertain that opposite party No. 2 registered the names of six applicants and has issued tender papers to those six applicants for the year 2013-14 through his letter No. 127 dated 07.01.2013. The manner of issuance of tender papers through his aforesaid letter dated 07.01.2013 of opposite party No. 2 would make the position clear that the application of the applicant has impliedly been rejected for being registered as approved supplier and that is why no tender paper has been issued to her. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on 09.01.2013 requested opposite party No. 2 to indicate the reason for not supplying the tender papers and in absence of any response, she submitted a detailed representation to opposite party No. 1 highlighting her grievance that she was deprived of participating in the tender process for the year 2013-14. Unfortunately there has been no response from opposite party No. 1 till date. 2. While the matters stood thus, on 11.01.2013 the petitioner received letter No. 71 dated 05.01.2013 from opposite party No. 2 alleging that Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner does not come to Jail Gate to receive day-to-day store orders and does not supply essential dietary articles. In the said letter dated 05.01.2013 it was indicated that the said letter has been issued in continuation of letters dated 07.12.2012 and 16.12.2012 of opposite party No. 2. In the said letter dated 05.01.2013 it was indicated that the said letter has been issued in continuation of letters dated 07.12.2012 and 16.12.2012 of opposite party No. 2. Upon receipt of letter dated 05.01.2013, the petitioner immediately on the same day furnished her required preliminary explanation to opposite party No. 2 denying the allegations leveled against her Power of Attorney Holder as untrue and baseless and was/is designed only with a view to denying the petitioner in taking part in the tender process for the year 2013-14. The petitioner in her explanation has further stated that she has neither received letter dated 07.12.2012 nor letter dated 16.12.2012 of opposite party No. 2 at any point of time. The petitioner has further stated that till date her Power of Attorney Holder has been coming to Jail Gate and receiving day-to-day store orders and supplying dietary articles, which have been duly received by opposite party No. 2. Since the last date of submission of tender papers had been fixed to 5.00 PM of 19.01.2013 and there was no response to the request of the petitioner by 12.01.2013, she has approached this Court with this writ petition. 3. 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 her 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. There has been a deliberate attempt to deprive the petitioner of participating in the tender process in question. Such denial of participation of petitioner amounts to deprivation of her fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Letter dated 05.01.2013 of opposite party No. 2 has been issued only with a view to depriving the petitioner of participating in the tender process for supply of dietary articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the year 2013-14. The unilateral allegation was an outcome of irrelevant and extraneous consideration and bereft of the terms and conditions of the tender notice in Annexure-1. The allegations are concocted as would be evident from the explanation given by the petitioner under Annexure-7. During her tenure of more than 10 years of suppliership, no such allegation was ever made against the petitioner by opposite party No. 2. The allegations are concocted as would be evident from the explanation given by the petitioner under Annexure-7. During her tenure of more than 10 years of suppliership, no such allegation was ever made against the petitioner by opposite party No. 2. The allegations cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner the right of being registered as approved supplier to participate in the tender process for supply of dietary articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the year 2013-14. Therefore, rejection of application of the petitioner to register her name as approved supplier is illegal. Concluding his argument, Mr. Tripathy prays to allow the relief as prayed in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties submitted that application of the petitioner along with required documents was received on 18.12.2012, which was submitted through her husband Deepak Kumar Mohanty, which should have been submitted by herself in person at the initial stage. As per letter No. 5250 dated 24.12.2012, the petitioner sent her original documents for verification on 02.01.2013 through her husband at the preliminary stage. Upon verification of the original documents, several discrepancies were detected and for her default in supplying the most essential articles during the past months, her name was not taken into consideration for registration. It is further submitted that her husband was observed to be very irregular. Neither she nor her Power of Attorney Holder comes to Jail Gate to receive the store orders daily to supply the very essential commodities which caused immense difficulties in running the jail where lives of the inmates are concerned. Since the petitioner submitted false and fabricated reply, she has lost the reliability in her transaction with the jail. Another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1009 of 2013 has been filed by Deepak Kumar Mohanty, who is husband of the petitioner, wherein he has stated that he is a running contractor of the Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar and running his business there as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement Bond and Tender Call Notice. It is impossible and not practicable on the part of a particular person to run his business at two places where the distance is more than 50 KMs, i.e., between Choudwar and Bhubaneswar. When all the documents submitted by the petitioner were verified, the defects as narrated in the counter affidavit came to the notice. It is impossible and not practicable on the part of a particular person to run his business at two places where the distance is more than 50 KMs, i.e., between Choudwar and Bhubaneswar. When all the documents submitted by the petitioner were verified, the defects as narrated in the counter affidavit came to the notice. It is a matter of surprise as to how a lady could be able to get her name registered as approved supplier of two jails by suppressing the material evidence for long period, violating the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that one intending applicant is allowed to register her name for one jail only. It is not believable that the petitioner has not received the first two letters. To supply dietary articles, the approved suppliers are appointed for one year by Purchase Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar after verifying genuineness of the documents and past experience as per the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice. The approved suppliers are supposed to supply the commodities w.e.f. 1st April of every year. 5. The petitioner did not respond to letter Nos. 5031 dated 07.12.2012 and subsequent letter No. 5157 dated 16.12.2012 asking her to explain regarding Power of Attorney Holder's default in supplying the articles as per store orders. Further in response to third letter No. 71 dated 05.01.2013, she submitted reply stating therein that she had not received the earlier two letters. Moreover, her explanation filed in response to the 3rd letter is fabricated and false. Therefore, she lost the reliability of her transaction with the jail. As the Purchase Committee has selected the genuine suppliers in its meeting held on 22.01.2013 and, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 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 paper to her to participate in the tender process are valid and sustainable in law. 7. 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 paper to her to participate in the tender process are valid and sustainable in law. 7. The defects/allegations on the basis of which the petitioner's application to register her name as approved supplier was rejected and consequentially no tender paper was supplied to her to participate in tender process, as stated in counter affidavit are as follows: (i) Chapala Mohanty has furnished her PAN Card bearing No. ABCPM-1854-H wherein she has given her identification as the daughter of Raj Kishore Kanungo without address which creates doubts. (ii) In the form of VAT-612-Clearance Certificate & TIN No. 409 (Tax Payer Identification No. 21771301703), she has been identified as the daughter of Raj Kishore Kanungo of Kalinga Bazar, Choudwar. But she has furnished the Solvency Certificate identifying herself as wife of Deepak Kumar Mohanty at Charuprava Kanhu Mohanty Lane, PS-Purighat, Cuttack showing E.C. No. EC-03912005979 by 2012. (iii) While verified the E.C. bearing the same number above, it was found that, her properties are related to village, Unit-VIII, Dakhin Tulasipur which differs from the address of her husband and father in the Solvency Certificate and VAT-612 Clearance Certificate respectively. (iv) In the Solvency Certificate her identification is Chapala Mohanty, W/o. Deepak Kumar Mohanty at Charuprava, Kanhu Mohanty Lane, PS-Purighat, Cuttack. But the E.C. bearing the above number at point-2 belongs to Unit-VIII, Dakhina Tulsipur which creates confusion. Apart from the above defects, Sri Deepak Kumar Mohanty to who she has engaged as Power of Attorney Holder to run her business at Special Jail, Bhubaneswar is observed to be very irregular. Neither she nor her Power of Attorney holder comes to Jail gate to receive the store orders daily to supply the very essential commodities and created immense difficulties in running in the Jail where lives of the inmates are concerned. While letter No. 5031 dtd. 7.12.2012 and subsequent letter No. 5157 dtd. 16.12.2012 were issued asking for her explanation for her/Power of Attorney Holder's default in supplying the articles as per store orders, she did not respond and when 3rd letter No. 71 dtd. While letter No. 5031 dtd. 7.12.2012 and subsequent letter No. 5157 dtd. 16.12.2012 were issued asking for her explanation for her/Power of Attorney Holder's default in supplying the articles as per store orders, she did not respond and when 3rd letter No. 71 dtd. 5.1.2013, she submitted a reply stating therein about non-receipt of first two letters in response to the 3rd letter, she submitted some false and fabricated reply for which she has lost the reliability in her transaction with the Jail. Most important factor is that, when she has not come to the Jail in person (which is important) to submit her application for registration of her name as approved supplier for the year 2013-14 and sent the same through her husband Sri Deepak Kumar Mohanty, it is not trustworthy that, she was coming to Jail to supply the dietary articles. The next point is that she says that her Power of Attorney Holder comes to Jail daily to receive the store orders for supplying the required commodities. It is brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Court that another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1009 of 2013 has been filed by Deepak Kumar Mohanty (husband of the present petitioner) wherein he has stated that he is a running contractor of the Circle Jail, Cuttack Chowdwar. If he is an existing supplier of Circle Jail, Cuttak at Choudwar and running his business there as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement Bond and Tender Call Notice, it is impossible and not practicable on the part of a particular person to run his business at two places where the distance is more than 50 KMs, i.e., between Choudwar and Bhubaneswar. Further add to that, all the letters, were despatched to her in the same address, when the 3rd letter was admittedly received by her and a reply was submitted and her statement that she had not received the first two letters is out and out false. It is humbly stated here that she has adopted falsehood and thus the non supply of tender process is legal and justified. 8. So far as defect No.(i) is concerned, it is known to everybody that in PAN Card no address is ever given by the Income Tax Department. It is humbly stated here that she has adopted falsehood and thus the non supply of tender process is legal and justified. 8. So far as defect No.(i) is concerned, it is known to everybody that in PAN Card no address is ever given by the Income Tax Department. It may be pertinent to mention here that in the PAN Card there is no provision to mention the name of the husband of a married woman. Therefore, on that ground, i.e., in absence of the address in PAN Card bearing No. BCPM-1854-H, in which the name of the father of the petitioner is written, its genuineness cannot be doubted. It may be important to note here that opposite parties have not brought to the notice of this Court that in the cases of other bidders similar defects were pointed out or the so-called defects are not appearing in their PAN Cards. 9. So far defect no.(ii) is concerned, there is no legal bar or embargo to get Solvency Certificate showing EC No. EC-03912005979 in husband's address even though in Form VAT-612 clearance certificate and TIN No. 409 (Tax Payer Identification No. 21771301703), the petitioner has been identified as the daughter of Raj Kishore Kanungo of Kalinga Bazar, Choudwar. The stand of the petitioner that she has been furnishing Solvency Certificate in her husband's address for the last ten years as approved supplier for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar has not been denied by opposite parties. Moreover, it is not the case of opposite parties that such Solvency Certificate has ever been objected to in the past. Therefore, such defect is not legally sustainable. 10. Defect No.(iii) is also not legally sustainable since the stand of the petitioner that she has got encumbrance certificate in respect of property situated at Unit-8, Dakhin Tulsipur, Cuttack owned by her has not been denied/disputed by the opposite parties. It is absurd to say that a wife could always own property within the area/locality of her husband's address or father's address and she cannot acquire/own property beyond the husband's/father's address/locality where they reside. 11. Defect No.(iv) has no leg to stand because the petitioner has got EC in respect of properties at Unit-8, Dakhin Tulsipur, Cuttack, which stood in her name and the same has not been disputed by opposite parties. 11. Defect No.(iv) has no leg to stand because the petitioner has got EC in respect of properties at Unit-8, Dakhin Tulsipur, Cuttack, which stood in her name and the same has not been disputed by opposite parties. Therefore, there is no reason to say that same creates any confusion because in the Solvency Certificate the identification of the petitioner has been mentioned as Chapala Mohanty, wife of Deepak Kumar Mohanty at Charuprava Kanhu Mohanty Lane, PS: Purighat, Cuttack. Thus, all the four defects on the basis of which the opposite parties have not registered the name of the petitioner as approved Supplier and consequentially not supplying the tender paper to participate in the tender process are not legally sustainable. 12. The other reason given by opposite parties that the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner was irregular in supplying the dietary articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar does not appear to be based on any evidence. It is not disputed by opposite parties that the petitioner was an approved Supplier in Special jail, Bhubaneswar for last ten 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 petitioner for the alleged irregularities in supplying dietary articles to Special Jail, Bhubaneswar by the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner. Normally, in such situation the contractee takes steps to blacklist the contractor by following due process of law. In the present case, no such steps have been taken as admitted by the learned Government Advocate. As it appears, such allegation is raised in the midst of tender process for the year 2013-14. Therefore, such an allegation is not founded on any basis. 13. It is further asserted by the petitioner in rejoinder that under RTI Act, she sought for various information from which, inter alia, it reveals that letter No. 5031 dated 07.12.2012 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, Despatch Register reveals that endorsement of such letters and subsequent memos were inserted by a different person other than the person maintaining Despatch Register and there is no indication about the mode of communication. So far letter No. 5157 dated 16.12.2012 is concerned, Despatch Register reveals that endorsement of such letters and subsequent memos were inserted by a different person other than the person maintaining Despatch Register and there is no indication about the mode of communication. It is further stated in the rejoinder that on a bare perusal of the note sheets dated 05.12.2012 and 16.12.2012 read with the Despatch Register, it would be crystal clear that the records have been manipulated by opposite party No. 2 just to oust the petitioner from the tender process in question. It was further submitted that perusal of the entire 170 pages of the information would indicate that neither the name of the petitioner nor names of any other approved Suppliers have been recorded in the gate article. 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 her over telephone is absolutely false and fabricated. Further, referring to rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no stipulation in the tender call notice that one intending applicant will be allowed to register his/her name for one jail only. It is matter of record that those Suppliers, namely, M/s. Subhadarsini Supply Agency, M/s. Sk. Jamal, Bhujangaraj Biswal, who have been approved as Suppliers for Special Jail, Bhubaneswar jail have also been permitted to register their names at Circle Jails, Choudwar, Koraput, Berhampur, Baripada and Sambalpur. Also in the cases of Gagan Behari Sahoo, 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 petitioner is concerned, she has been an approved supplier for Circle Jail, Cuttack and Special Jail, Bhubaneswar with separate solvency certificate. Therefore, the allegations are concocted only to frustrate the writ petition. It would thus be clear that there has been a concerted effort on the part of opposite party No. 2 only to discriminate the petitioner for the year 2013-14. All the above stands taken in the rejoinder have not been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, the allegations are concocted only to frustrate the writ petition. It would thus be clear that there has been a concerted effort on the part of opposite party No. 2 only to discriminate the petitioner for the year 2013-14. All the above stands taken in the rejoinder have not been denied by the opposite parties. 14. 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. 15. For the reasons stated above, we direct the opposite parties to register the name of the petitioner as Approved Supplier and allow her 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